LAWRENCE ANDERSON, 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 judgment of conviction was improper because the jury's verdict failed to allege knowledge that the goods were stolen, an essential element of the crime.
Defendant was convicted of buying, receiving, or concealing stolen property. The jury's verdict form found him guilty of the act but did not include a…
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 Stolen Property cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant was tried by jury and convicted of buying, receiving or aiding in the concealment of stolen property [§ 811.16, Fla.Stat.]. He appeals the judgment.
In one of his points on appeal defendant urges as reversible error the fact that the verdict form signed by the jury fails to allege that he knew the goods were stolen. We find this point well taken.
Although the judgment of conviction states that the defendant had been regularly tried and convicted of unlawfully buying, receiving or aiding in the concealment of stolen property, well knowing the same to be stolen, the jury’s verdict was simply a finding of guilty of buying, receiving or concealing stolen property. In a criminal case the judgment of the trial court must conform to the verdict of the jury and, thus, we find the judgment to be improper. See Holloman v. State, 140 Fla. 59, 191 So. 36 (1939). We further find that the jury’s verdict is defective in that it failed to recite knowledge on the defendant’s part which is an essential element of the crime charged. See Myers v. State, 115 Fla. 627, 155 So. 797 (1934); Spurlock v. State, Fla.App.1973, 281 So. 2d 586 and cases cited therein. The verdict being a nullity, the judgment of conviction is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial. See Myers, supra, at 798.
We find the defendant’s remaining points on appeal to be without merit.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lopez v. State, 470 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…earm cannot stand. The trial court’s judgment must conform to the jury’s verdict. Perkins v. Mayo, 92 So. 2d 641 (Fla.1957); Lewis v. State, 154 Fla. 825, 19 So. 2d 199 (1944); Starkes v. State, 438 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Anderson v. State, 338 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 352 So. 2d 174 (Fla.1977). The judgment adjudicating Lopez guilty of attempted murder with a firearm does not reflect the verdict and must be set aside for entry of the appropriate judgment, that is, attempted first…
-
In the Interest of W. S. v. State, 393 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…nt written commitment order and sentence erroneously recited that appellant was adjudicated guilty of burglary and grand theft. The lower tribunal is instructed to correct the record to reflect the conviction for grand theft only. Anderson v. State, 338 So. 2d 209 (Fla.3d DCA 1976). AFFIRMED BUT REMANDED TO CORRECT RECORD. LETTS, C. J., and BERANEK and HERSEY, JJ., concur.…
-
Joseph H. Council v. State, 443 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…commit theft, State v. Allen, 362 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1978), and failed to establish that Council knew the cheek he had received in payment for homosexual activities was worthless. See Myers v. State, 115 Fla. 627, 155 So. 797 (1934); Anderson v. State, 338 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 352 So. 2d 174 (Fla.1977); Spurlock v. State, 281 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). The account on which the check was drawn had been closed, but the state did not call the [*441] drawer of the check as a witness. Thu…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Holloman v. State, 140 Fla. 59 (Fla. 1939)
- Myers v. State, 115 Fla. 627 (Fla. 1934)
- Spurlock v. State, 281 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)