CHARLES ADDERLY, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court properly denied the defendant's motion to dismiss because the presence of car keys in the vehicle established possession and raised an inference of guilty knowledge, which was a question for the trier of fact.
Police found the appellant sleeping in a stolen car with the car keys on the floorboard. The appellant claimed he innocently entered the car to sleep.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Inference Of Guilty Knowledge cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The appellant pled nolo to a charge of theft of a motor vehicle, reserving the present challenge to the denial of his sworn motion to dismiss under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(c)(4). We affirm.
Two policemen found Adderly sleeping on the back seat of an automobile which had been recently taken from its owner, Metropolitan Dade County. On the rear floorboard, they discovered his hat and, next to it, the keys to the vehicle. The presence of those keys established that Adderly was in control and therefore in possession of the car itself, see Shank v. State, 154 Ind.App. 147, 289 N.E. 2d 315 (1972); cf. Wells v. State, 613 P. 2d 201 (Wyo.1980),1 and thus raised the inference of guilty knowledge that the car was stolen created by sec. 812.022(2), Fla.Stat. (1983). It also, and simultaneously, refuted the explanation offered to the officer by Adderly2 — that he had innocently crawled into an abandoned car looking for a place to sleep — so as to render the believability of that claim and the question of whether the statutory inference had been overcome for the trier of fact. State v. Graham, 238 So. 2d 618 (Fla.1970); P.N. v. State, 443 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Fox, 404 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). The (c)(4) motion was therefore properly denied.
Affirmed.
. We need not decide, therefore, whether mere presence in the back seat of an otherwise unoccupied car amounts to possession.
. Compare R.A.L. v. State, 402 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (inference conclusively overcome by "unrefuted, exculpatory, and not unreasonable" explanation of possession).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rivers v. State, 124 So. 3d 247 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…hown, if not by aid or participation in the taking of the vehicle, then by some exercise of dominion and control over it afterwards.”) (quoting G.C. v. State, 560 So. 2d 1186, 1187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)7 (alteration in original)); cf. Adderly v. State, 462 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (holding that evidence sufficed to show defendant’s possession of stolen auto when defendant was found sleeping in back seat and car keys were on floorboard next to defendant’s hat). In addition, the evidence was sufficient to es…
-
Carlton Owens v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…n order withholding adjudication and imposing probation); Velazquez v. State, 561 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (reviewing, on appeal, the denial of a pretrial motion to dismiss following entry of a final judgment of conviction); Adderly v. State, 462 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (reviewing, on appeal, the denial of a pretrial motion to dismiss following entry of a plea of nolo contendere); Kuhn v. State, 439 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (reviewing an order denying a pretrial motion to dismiss in an appea…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Graham, 238 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1970)
- R. A. L. v. State, 402 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Rodriguez v. Rattan, 402 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- P.N. v. State, 443 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- State v. FOX, 404 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)