JACK SOKOL, 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 appellate court affirmed a bribery conviction, finding sufficient evidence of criminal intent. The court relied on prior case law to support its decision.
Yes, the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
“An examination of the record reveals the evidence to be sufficient to sustain the conviction.”
Establishes the court's finding regarding the sufficiency of the evidence.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was convicted of bribery. The information was initially quashed but this court reversed that decision. Upon retrial, the appellant was f…
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
This is an appeal from a conviction of bribery as set forth in § 838.011, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. The information was originally quashed by the trial judge, but his decision was reversed by this court. See State v. Sokol, Fla.App.1968, 208 So.2d 156. Upon *844trial of the cause by the court, the appellant was found guilty and sentenced to one year imprisonment.
On this appeal the appellant questions the sufficiency of the evidence, particularly the evidence concerning intent, to sustain the conviction.
An examination of the record reveals the evidence to be sufficient to sustain the conviction. The totality of circumstances establishes the criminal intent of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the judgment and sentence are affirmed upon authority of Zalla v. State, Fla.1952, 61 So.2d 649; Eizenman v. State, Fla.App.1961, 132 So.2d 763; Crum v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 24. See also State v. Sebastian, Fla.1965, 171 So.2d 893.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Schwartzer, 234 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 1970)…PER CURIAM. This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, reported at 217 So. 2d 843, which opinion is as follows: “PER CURIAM. “This appeal presents the same issue which has previously been dealt with in Ringenberger v. General Accident F. & L. Assur. Corp., Fla.App. 1968, 214 So. 2d 376; Sellers v. Government Employees Insurance…
-
Sokol v. State, 225 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 1969)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 217 So. 2d 843.…
-
Schwartzer v. Allstate Ins. Co., 239 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…PER CURIAM. Whereas, the judgment of this court was entered on January 14, 1969 (217 So. 2d 843) reversing the order of the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, in the above styled cause; and Whereas, on review of this court’s judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida, by its opinion and judgment filed April 15, 1970 (234 So. 2d…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Crum v. State, 172 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- State v. Sebastian, 171 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 1965)
- Eizenman v. State, 132 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Zalla v. State, 61 So.2d 649 (Fla. 1952)
- State v. Sokol, 208 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)