The defendant's vehicle matched the description of a vehicle seen in the vicinity of a burglary before the burglary, during the burglary, and after the burglary. The defendant claimed that the evidence was insufficient to prove he was an accomplice to the burglary.

Does this case illustrate the legal concept of accomplice act, accomplice intent, or both?

Collins v. State, 438 So. 2d 1036 (1983).