GUILLERMO FUNDORA, 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.
Defendant Fundora appeals his conviction for buying, receiving, or concealing stolen property, arguing the evidence was insufficient to prove he knew the vehicle was stolen. The Florida appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding sufficient evidence that the suspicious circumstances of the vehicle's condition put Fundora on inquiry notice of its stolen status.
The conviction for buying, receiving, or concealing stolen property is affirmed because the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, presented a sufficient question of fact regarding knowledge. The suspicious circumstances of the vehicle's condition (broken window and loose ignition wires) were sufficient to put a person of ordinary intelligence on inquiry notice that the property was stolen.
[1] A conviction for receiving stolen property requires evidence showing, to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt, that the accused knew the property was stolen at the time of…
[2] Evidence of erratic driving, a broken vent window, and loose ignition wires can be sufficient to present a question of fact regarding the defendant's knowledge that a veh…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It is essential to a conviction for receiving stolen property that the evidence shall show to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge that the property in question was stolen at the time he received it, or that the circumstances of the transaction were sufficiently suspicious to put a person of ordinary intelligence and caution upon inquiry.”
Establishes the legal standard for knowledge required in receiving stolen property cases, allowing conviction based on either actual knowledge or sufficiently suspicious circumstances.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn July 6, 1972, Fundora was observed driving erratically on I-95 at high speed. When stopped by plainclothes police officers, they observed the drive…
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 Buying, Receiving Or Concealing Stolen Property cases and more on FLexlaw
MARTIN, Associate Judge.
An information charging the Defendant with (1) possession of a stolen motor vehicle, (2) buying, receiving or concealing stolen property, and (3) carrying a concealed weapon, was filed on September 14, 1972. The defendant was arraigned and pleaded not guilty, waiving trial by jury. The State abandoned Count (1) of the information, possession of a stolen motor vehicle, and the trial judge thereafter found the Defendant guilty of the remaining two counts. Defendant was sentenced to four years for buying, receiving or concealing stolen property, and to one year for carrying a concealed weapon. In this appeal, appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment of conviction on Count (2) for buying, receiving or concealing stolen goods, and that the trial Court should have granted his motion for a judgment of acquittal. Specifically, Defendant contends that the element of knowledge required by Section 811.16, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., is lacking in the evidence adduced before the trial Court.
The evidence discloses that the Defendant, accompanied by another not on trial, was operating a motor vehicle on the evening of July 6, 1972, in a northerly direction on 1-95 at a relatively high rate of speed. It was Defendant’s misfortune to pass an unmarked police vehicle traveling in the same direction which was occupied by two plainclothes police officers. The officers observed Defendant operating his vehicle in an erratic manner until he exited 1-95 at the 79th Street exit, at which time the officers stopped Defendant’s vehicle.
Upon approaching Defendant’s vehicle, one of the officers observed that the side vent window on the driver’s side was broken out and that there were loose wires hanging from underneath the dash directly below the ignition.
In State v. Graham, 238 So. 2d 618, 620 (Fla.1970), the Supreme Court of Florida stated:
“It is essential to a conviction for receiving stolen property that the evidence shall show to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge that the property in question was stolen at the time he received it, or that the circumstances of the transaction were sufficiently suspicious to put a person of ordinary intelligence and caution upon inquiry.”
Examining the evidence before the trial Court at the time of the ruling on the motion for a judgment of acquittal, it appears that a question of fact on the issue of knowledge was presented because all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence adduced and conclusions are in favor of the party moved against. Devlin v. State, 175 So. 2d 82 (Fla.App.1965).
In the case sub judice, the test has been met and the judgment and sentence must be affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Castillo v. State, 308 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…acquittal at the conclusion of all the evidence, which the trial court denied. In so moving, the court was entitled to draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence adduced and conclusions in favor of the state. Fundora v. State, Fla. App.1974, 294 So. 2d 714. Since the appellant did not move for a new trial, this court is not obliged to measure the alleged insufficiency of the evidence with reference to the total weight of the evidence adduced. Mancini v. State, Fla.1973, 273 So. 2d 371; State v. Barber…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Graham, 238 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1970)
- Devlin v. State, 175 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)