Case Name: Daniel HUDSON, a/k/a David Sands, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1984-02-08
Citations: 444 So. 2d 598
Docket Number: No. 83-1356
Parties: Daniel HUDSON, a/k/a David Sands, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: GLICKSTEIN and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 444
Pages: 598–599

Head Matter:
Daniel HUDSON, a/k/a David Sands, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 83-1356.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Feb. 8, 1984.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Gary Caldwell, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Lydia M. Valenti, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Evidence of similar facts is admissible for any purpose if relevant to any material issue, other than propensity or bad character, even though such evidence points to commission of another crime. Drake v. State, 400 So.2d 1217 (Fla.1981); Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1959); Section 90.404(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1982). Our review of the record also reveals that the State did in fact establish ownership and identity of the stolen property by competent, substantial evidence. Johnson v. State, 353 So.2d 889 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). See also, State v. Fort, 380 So.2d 534 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
AFFIRMED.
GLICKSTEIN and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
ANSTEAD, C.J., dissents without opinion.