TONY JEROME HELMS, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Tony Helms appealed his conviction on three counts of marijuana possession with intent to sell and one count of accessory after the fact. The court affirmed the possession convictions but reversed the accessory conviction, finding insufficient evidence that Helms intended to help the thieves avoid detection, arrest, trial, or punishment.
The conviction as an accessory after the fact must be reversed because the State failed to prove that Helms intended to aid the thieves to avoid or escape detection, arrest, trial, or punishment—an essential element under Section 777.03. The convictions for possession of marijuana with intent to sell are affirmed.
[1] A conviction for being an accessory after the fact requires proof that the defendant intended to aid the principal offender in avoiding or escaping detection, arrest, tri…
[2] Evidence that a defendant purchased stolen contraband, knowing it was stolen, is insufficient to sustain a conviction as an accessory after the fact without proof of inte…
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“Whoever, not standing in the relation of husband or wife, parent or grandparent, child or grandchild, brother or sister, by consanguinity or affinity to the offender, maintains or assists the principal or accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that he had committed a felony or been accessory thereto before the fact, with intent that he shall avoid or escape detection, arrest, trial or punishment, shall be deemed an accessory after the fact”
The statute defining accessory after the fact, which requires proof of intent that the offender avoid or escape detection, arrest, trial, or punishment
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMarijuana being held as evidence was stolen from Martin County Jail. The thieves contacted Helms and sold him the stolen marijuana. Helms had no famil…
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 Possession Of Marijuana With Intent To Sell cases and more on FLexlaw
ALDERMAN, Chief Judge.
The defendant appeals his conviction and sentence on three counts of possession of over five grams of marijuana with intent to sell and one count of accessory after the fact of grand larceny. The defendant received concurrent five year sentences on each of the possession charges, plus an additional two year consecutive sentence on the accessory charge. A number of issues are raised, but only one has merit: the evidence is not sufficient to sustain defendant’s conviction as an accessory after the fact.
The defendant was charged with violation of Section 777.03, Florida Statutes (1975), which provides:
Whoever, not standing in the relation of husband or wife, parent or grandparent, child or grandchild, brother or sister, by consanguinity or affinity to the offender, maintains or assists the principal or accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that he had committed a felony or been accessory thereto before the fact, with intent that he shall avoid or escape detection, arrest, trial or punishment, shall be deemed an accessory after the fact .
The facts are not in dispute. A quantity of marijuana, seized by law enforcement officers and being held as evidence, was stolen from the Martin County Jail. The thieves contacted the defendant; a deal was made and the defendant purchased the stolen marijuana.
The State proved that the defendant had no family relationship to the thieves and that he had assisted them by helping to dispose of the marijuana. It was also established that the defendant knew that the marijuana was stolen. However, there was no proof that the defendant intended to aid the thieves to “avoid or escape detection, arrest, trial or punishment”. This is an essential element which must be proved before there can be a conviction under Section 777.03.
The other points raised have been considered and found to be without merit. The defendant’s convictions for possession of marijuana are affirmed. His conviction as an accessory after the fact under Section 777.03 is reversed.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part.
DOWNEY and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bowen v. State, 791 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…avoiding punishment. For example, aid given to a felon to protect one’s personal safety or for other personal reasons, but without the intent to assist the felon, will not support a conviction for accessory after the fact. See, e.g., Helms v. State, 349 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) (holding evidence that defendant purchased marijuana that he knew was stolen, and thus helped thieves dispose of it, was not sufficient to prove accessory after the fact to theft); Whorley v. State, 45 Fla. 123, 33 So. 849 (Fla.1…
-
Wilson v. State, 824 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…how that the defendant intended to aid the principal (Valentine) to “avoid or escape detention, arrest, trial or punishment,” which is “an essential element which must be proved before there can be a conviction under Section 777.03.” Helms v. State, 349 So. 2d 726, 727 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); accord Bowen, 791 So. 2d at 53. Proving a defendant’s knowledge of the underlying crime or his intent in aiding the principal “will often require relying solely on circumstantial evidence. In that [*337] event, the circums…