Case Name: Edwin Morris SCHWAM, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1969-05-20
Citations: 222 So. 2d 790
Docket Number: No. 68-1118
Parties: Edwin Morris SCHWAM, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and SWANN, J., and LILES, WOODIE A., Associate Judge.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 222
Pages: 790–791

Head Matter:
Edwin Morris SCHWAM, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 68-1118.
District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.
May 20, 1969.
Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender, and Jeffrey Michael Cohen, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Harold Mendelow, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and SWANN, J., and LILES, WOODIE A., Associate Judge.

Opinion:
SWANN, Judge.
The appellant, Schwam, appeals from his judgment and sentence for the crime of possession of burglary tools.
The question on appeal is whether there was sufficient competent evidence presented in the non-jury trial to prove that Schwam violated Fla.Stat. § 810.06, F.S.A.
In Estevez v. State, Fla.App.1966, 189 So.2d 830, 831, it was stated:
" the principal elements of the crime are possession of a 'burglarious tool' with the intent to use, or allow the use of, the particular tool to commit a crime."
Upon review of the testimony and evidence relating to possession and intent and in light of the evidence as to the surrounding facts and circumstances, we are of the view that there was substantial, competent evidence to support the guilty verdict and the judgment and sentence. See Troise v. State, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 24; Rinehart v. State, Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 487; Estevez v. State, supra.
Affirmed.