Tidwell v. Circuit Court of De Soto County
| Decision Date | 15 September 1942 |
| Citation | 151 Fla. 333,9 So.2d 630 |
| Parties | TIDWELL v. CIRCUIT COURT OF DE SOTO COUNTY, et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
W D. Bell, of Arcadia, for petitioner.
J. Tom Watson Atty. Gen., and Woodrow M. Melvin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.
The petitioner has applied to this court for writ of prohibition directed to the judges of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit to prevent his trial in their court upon an information charging him with receiving stolen property, valued at less than fifty dollars as denounced by Section 811.16, Florida Statutes, 1941.
The penalty prescribed for violation of that law is 'imprisonment in the state prison not exceeding five years, or * * * fine not exceeding five hundred dollars.' Thus, the offense is a felony under Article XVI, Section 25, of the Constitution of Florida, defining that degree of crime.
The petitioner challenges the jurisdiction of the circuit court because of a circumstance created by him and the provisions of Section 811.17, Florida Statutes, 1941. After the information was filed he paid to the party from whom the goods were alleged to have been stolen the full value of the property.
By the terms of Section 811.17, supra, 'upon a first conviction [under Section 811.16, supra] * * * when the act of stealing the property is not by law a felony, if the party convicted of * * * receiving * * * such stolen property, makes satisfaction * * * to the full value of the property * * * he shall not be imprisoned in the state prison, but may be liable to such additional punishment as the court may direct.' (We have supplied the italics.) Thus, it is the contention of the petitioner that the act of restitution precluded imprisonment in the state prison and, therefore, because of the quoted constitutional definition, reduced the grade of the crime to a misdemeanor of which the circuit court has no jurisdiction.
We are unable to follow this course of reasoning. The gravity of the offense was fixed at the time of its commission and the voluntary act on the part of the defendant in making restoration to the person whose property was stolen has no influence upon the nature of the crime or the jurisdiction of the court in which the matter should be tried, but only serves to diminish the character of the punishment if the defendant is eventually convicted. It will be observed by turning to the part of the statute we have italicized that it was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State
...Cf. State v. Fitz, Fla.1967, 202 So.2d 841 and Chapman v. Lake, 1933, 112 Fla. 746, 151 So. 399, 402. See also Tidwell v. Circuit Court, 1942, 151 Fla. 333, 9 So.2d 630; Cox v. State, Fla.App.1966, 190 So.2d 823; and Griffin v. State, Fla.App.1969, 217 So.2d 893. Under F.S. Section 810.05, ......
-
State v. Webb
...Annotation, supra, at 820; see, e.g., Vaughn v. State (1941), 147 Fla. 12, 2 So.2d 122, overruled on other grounds Tidwell v. Circuit Court (1942), 151 Fla. 333, 9 So.2d 630. However, the courts in a minority of jurisdictions have held that a thief is an accomplice of one charged with recei......
-
Flowers v. State, 68--358
...insofar as it indicates that the effect of Section 811.17 is to reduce Section 811.16 to a misdemeanor. Tidwell v. Circuit Court of DeSoto County, 1942, 151 Fla. 333, 9 So.2d 630. Receiving stolen property is a felony irrespective of the value of the thing stolen. See Brizzie v. State, Fla.......
-
Spurlock v. State
...Fla. 286, 78 So. 272; Vaughn v. State, Fla.1941, 147 Fla. 12, 2 So.2d 122; both cases overruled on other grounds in Tidwell v. State, Fla.1942, 151 Fla. 333, 9 So.2d 630. As defendant concedes he failed to object below to the verdict, he failed to move for a new trial, and never attacked th......