JACK MEHLMAN, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a conviction for bribery, finding that the state sufficiently proved the elements of the crime and disproved entrapment. The court found no reversible error in the trial court's judgment and sentence.
Yes, the state met its burden of proof on both counts. The court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the bribery charge and to negate the entrapment defense.
“Appellant was charged by information with bribery in violation of § 838.011, Fla. Stat., F.S.A. He pleaded not guilty, was tried without a jury and convicted as charged.”
Establishes the initial charges and conviction in the lower court.
Previewing 1 of 4 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Jack Mehlman was charged with bribery for allegedly attempting to influence a witness's testimony in a separate lottery statute violation ca…
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 Bribery cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant was charged by information with bribery in violation of § 838.011, Fla. Stat., F.S.A. He pleaded not guilty, was tried without a jury and convicted as charged. Thereupon he was sentenced to a term of two years in the state penitentiary. Appellant seeks reversal upon two grounds. Firstly, he contends that the state failed to sustain its burden of proving that appellant proposed that prosecution witness, Celana, omit or alter his testimony at a pending trial for appellant’s alleged violation of the Florida Lottery Statute. Appellant’s second ground is that the court erred in finding that the state had sustained its burden of proof that no entrapment existed.
We have considered all of appellant’s contentions in the light of the record, briefs and argument of counsel, and have found them to be without merit. See: Mitchell v. Gillespie, Fla.1965, 172 So.2d 819; Carter v. State, Fla.1963, 155 So.2d 787; Johnson v. State, Fla.App.1958, 101 So.2d 180; Parrish v. State, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 356.
No reversible error having been made to appear, the judgment and sentence are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Prentiss T. Parrish v. State, 97 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 1st DCA 1957)
- Carter v. State, 155 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 1963)
- Darius W. Johnson v. State, 101 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Coy Mitchell v. Rupert H. Gillespie, 172 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 1965)