Heineman v. State, 75--482
| Decision Date | 17 February 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75--482,75--482 |
| Parties | Edward HEINEMAN and James Lehman, Appellants, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Paul Morris, Miami, Asst. Public Defender, for appellants.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before HENDRY, HAVERFIELD and NATHAN, JJ.
Appellants, defendants below, appeal their adjudications of guilty and concomitant sentences for buying, receiving, or concealing stolen property and possessing more than five grams of marijuana.
A nonjury trial was held on March 23, 1973, at which time appellants were found guilty of the offense stated above. On May 4, 1973, the trial court adjudicated appellants guilty as charged and sentenced each of them to three years in the state penitentiary. On March 31, 1975, a petition for writ of Habeas corpus was filed in this court by which appellant sought a belated direct appeal of their convictions and sentences. On April 1, 1975, this court granted the relief requested in the petition and ordered that it be treated as a notice of appeal.
Appellants contend that the trial court erred in finding them guilty of buying, receiving, or concealing stolen property because no evidence was adduced at trial to establish that they knew the subject property was stolen, thereby violating their constitutional right to due process of law. Appellants also contend that the trial court erred in finding them guilty of the possession of marijuana because appellee failed to establish an essential element of the crime, i.e., their knowledge of the presence of the contraband.
Knowledge is an elusive quality. Like intent, since it is a state of mind, it is often not subject to direct proof and can only be inferred from the circumstances of the case by the trier of fact. Skold v. State, Fla.App.1972, 263 So.2d 627; Jones v. State, Fla.App.1966, 192 So.2d 285; and Scott v. State, Fla.App.1962, 137 So.2d 625. Where, as in the instant appeal, a case is tried nonjury before a judge his factual findings are entitled to the weight of a jury verdict. We must assume that he drew from the facts established those reasonable conclusions most unfavorable to appellants. Jefferson v. State, Fla.App.1974, 298 So.2d 465; Skold v. State, Fla.App.1972, 263 So.2d 627; and Parrish v. State, Fla.App.1957,97 So.2d 356. On appeal, this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hinkle v. State
...to appellant and drew from the facts established those reasonable conclusions most unfavorable to him. See, e. g., Heineman v. State, 327 So.2d 898 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Starling v. State, 263 So.2d 645 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Dreger v. State, 228 So.2d 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); and Douglas v. Stat......
-
Grant v. State
...prove intent."). Like intent, knowledge (or its absence) must often be inferred from surrounding circumstances. See Heineman v. State, 327 So.2d 898, 898 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) (stating knowledge is "a state of mind ... often not subject to direct proof"); State v. Norris, 384 So.2d 298, 299 (F......
-
E.P. v. State, 84-2366
...77 L.Ed.2d 1391 (1983); Molinaro v. State, 360 So.2d 119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 368 So.2d 1371 (Fla.1979); Heineman v. State, 327 So.2d 898 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 336 So.2d 1182 ...
-
Llano v. State, 77-1415
...So.2d 543 (Fla.1975); Damon v. State, 289 So.2d 720 (Fla.1973); Hernandez v. State, 323 So.2d 318 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Heineman v. State, 327 So.2d 898 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); and Hampton v. State, 336 So.2d 378 (Fla. 1st DCA Affirmed. ...