LEROY RHINEHART, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 2003-03-26
No. 4D01-3232
POLEN, C.J., KLEIN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
840 So. 2d 456 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2003) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Topics
Delivery Of Cocaine Fundamental Error Jury Instructions

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Delivery Of Cocaine cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Leroy Rhinehart, appeals from his conviction for delivery of cocaine. He argues that the trial court fundamentally erred when it failed to instruct the jury on the element of knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance pursuant to Chicone v. State, 684 So. 2d 736 (Fla.1996).

At appellant’s trial, appellant did not present any evidence or argue that he did not know the illicit nature of the substance he delivered. Appellant’s counsel did not request that the trial court give a Chicone instruction.

Pursuant to this court’s recent decision in Lee v. State, 835 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), we find that this was not fundamental error. We, therefore, affirm appellant’s conviction.

AFFIRMED.

POLEN, C.J., KLEIN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Garcia v. State, 901 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 2005)
    …o minor as to not be usable or effectively measured constituted dispute regarding knowledge of illicit nature); Starling v. State, 842 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (no fundamental error where defendant only contested identity); Rhinehart v. State, 840 So. 2d 456, 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (no fundamental error where defendant “did not present any evidence or argue that he did not know the illicit nature of the substance”); Davis v. State, 839 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (no fundamental error where defendan…
  • Mathis v. State, 859 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
    …e disagree. This court has recently held that failure to give the Chicone instruction amounts to fundamental error only where guilty knowledge is an issue in the case. Davis v. State, 839 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); see also Rhinehart v. State, 840 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (failure to give Chicone instruction was not fundamental error where appellant did not present any evidence or argue that he did not know the illicit nature of the substance he delivered). This case is akin to Davis and Rhinehar…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw