214 So. 2d 627 | Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 1968
The appellant was found guilty upon a two-count information after a non-jury trial. Count one charged the appellant with willfully destroying or damaging telephone equipment in violation of § 822.10, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Count two charged him with possession of burglarious tools in violation of § 810.06, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. The appellant urges that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the convictions.
While patrolling in an unmarked automobile during the early morning hours, a police officer of the City of Hialeah observed a person in a telephone booth. The telephone in the booth was protected by a silent alarm which rang in the police station if the telephone were tampered with. After the officer travelled about five blocks beyond the booth, he was informed by radio that someone was tampering with the telephone in the booth he had just passed. The officer immediately made a u-turn, retrav-elled the five blocks, and apprehended the appellant seven or eight yards from the booth. The telephone was in a damaged condition. The change box had been pried loose, and a part of the telephone was on the floor of the booth. A pry bar, screw driver, and tire iron were also on the floor of the booth.
Appellant contends that because the state was unable to present eye witness testimony that he was the person inside the booth, the circumstantial evidence presented is not sufficient to sustain the convictions under the rules stated in Mayo v. State, Fla.1954, 71 So.2d 899, 904, and Dedge v. State, 128 Fla. 343, 174 So. 725 (1937). We hold that the circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient to sustain a finding that the appellant was inside the telephone booth when the telephone was damaged, and
Affirmed.
