Aboy v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Aboy v. State

334 So. 2d 270, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15691

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 11, 1976

DocketNo. 75-1253

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 334 So. 2d 270 (Aboy v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aboy v. State, 334 So. 2d 270, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15691 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendants Ruben Aboy and Angela Romero, were regularly tried, without jury, and convicted of unlawfully buying, receiving, or aiding in the concealment of stolen property. Aboy was sentenced to one year in the county jail and Romero was placed on five years probation.

The singular determinative question presented in this appeal is whether there was sufficient evidence of defendants’ knowledge of the fact that the property, which was the subject matter of this crime, was stolen. In addition to competent evidence that the property was stolen and in the possession of the defendants, the record reflects substantial evidence adduced by the State regarding the place, time and surrounding circumstances under which the defendants were apprehended. This evidence was sufficient to prove the requisite element of the defendants’ guilty knowledge of the crime for which they were charged. State v. Graham, Fla.1970, 238 So.2d 618.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Defendants Ruben Aboy and Angela Romero, were regularly tried, without jury, and convicted of unlawfully buying, receiving, or aiding in the concealment of stolen property. Aboy was sentenced to one year in the county jail and Romero was placed on five years probation.

The singular determinative question presented in this appeal is whether there was sufficient evidence of defendants’ knowledge of the fact that the property, which was the subject matter of this crime, was stolen. In addition to competent evidence that the property was stolen and in the possession of the defendants, the record reflects substantial evidence adduced by the State regarding the place, time and surrounding circumstances under which the defendants were apprehended. This evidence was sufficient to prove the requisite element of the defendants’ guilty knowledge of the crime for which they were charged. State v. Graham, Fla.1970, 238 So.2d 618.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

334 So. 2d 270, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15691, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aboy-v-state-fladistctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack