Adderly v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Adderly v. State

462 So. 2d 574, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 250, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 11990

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 22, 1985

DocketNo. 83-3025

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 462 So. 2d 574 (Adderly 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

Adderly v. State, 462 So. 2d 574, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 250, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 11990 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The appellant pled nolo to a charge of theft of a motor vehicle, reserving the present challenge to the denial of his sworn motion to dismiss under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(c)(4). We affirm.

Two policemen found Adderly sleeping on the back seat of an automobile which [575]*575had been recently taken from its owner, Metropolitan Dade County. On the rear floorboard, they discovered his hat and, next to it, the keys to the vehicle. The presence of those keys established that Adderly was in control and therefore in possession of the car itself, see Shank v. State, 154 Ind.App. 147, 289 N.E.2d 315 (1972); cf. Wells v. State, 613 P.2d 201 (Wyo.1980),¹ and thus raised the inference of guilty knowledge that the car was stolen created by sec. 812.022(2), Fla.Stat. (1983). It also, and simultaneously, refuted the explanation offered to the officer by Adderly² — that he had innocently crawled into an abandoned car looking for a place to sleep — so as to render the believability of that claim and the question of whether the statutory inference had been overcome for the trier of fact. State v. Graham, 238 So.2d 618 (Fla.1970); P.N. v. State, 443 So.2d 193 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Fox, 404 So.2d 799 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). The (c)(4) motion was therefore properly denied.

Affirmed.

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

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The appellant pled nolo to a charge of theft of a motor vehicle, reserving the present challenge to the denial of his sworn motion to dismiss under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(c)(4). We affirm.

Two policemen found Adderly sleeping on the back seat of an automobile which [575]*575had been recently taken from its owner, Metropolitan Dade County. On the rear floorboard, they discovered his hat and, next to it, the keys to the vehicle. The presence of those keys established that Adderly was in control and therefore in possession of the car itself, see Shank v. State, 154 Ind.App. 147, 289 N.E.2d 315 (1972); cf. Wells v. State, 613 P.2d 201 (Wyo.1980),¹ and thus raised the inference of guilty knowledge that the car was stolen created by sec. 812.022(2), Fla.Stat. (1983). It also, and simultaneously, refuted the explanation offered to the officer by Adderly² — that he had innocently crawled into an abandoned car looking for a place to sleep — so as to render the believability of that claim and the question of whether the statutory inference had been overcome for the trier of fact. State v. Graham, 238 So.2d 618 (Fla.1970); P.N. v. State, 443 So.2d 193 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Fox, 404 So.2d 799 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). The (c)(4) motion was therefore properly denied.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

462 So. 2d 574, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 250, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 11990, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adderly-v-state-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack