Cernance v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cernance v. State

242 So. 2d 473, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 5367

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 30, 1970

DocketNo. 69-404

StatusPublished

This text of 242 So. 2d 473 (Cernance 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

Cernance v. State, 242 So. 2d 473, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 5367 (Fla. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, David Joseph Cernance, appeals a judgment and sentence entered on his conviction by a jury of receiving stolen property.

The trial court in its judgment adjudicated appellant guilty of receiving stolen property. The judgment, however, failed to recite that appellant received the property with knowledge of its stolen character, or of circumstances that would put a reasonable person on inquiry as to its stolen character. Such a judgment fails to adjudicate appellant guilty of possession of stolen property under conditions which make such having, receiving and concealing a criminal offense. Mathis v. State, 1938, 134 Fla. 352, 184 So. 89; Perkins v. State, 1936, 126 Fla. 707, 171 So. 655; Biesendorfer v. State, Fla.App.1969, 227 So.2d 322.

We have considered the remaining points raised on appeal by appellant, and determine them to be without merit.

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the sentence is vacated and set aside, and the cause remanded for entry of judgment consistent with the views herein expressed and imposition of sentence as the justice of the cause shall require.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.

CROSS, C. J., and McCAIN and REED, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, David Joseph Cernance, appeals a judgment and sentence entered on his conviction by a jury of receiving stolen property.

The trial court in its judgment adjudicated appellant guilty of receiving stolen property. The judgment, however, failed to recite that appellant received the property with knowledge of its stolen character, or of circumstances that would put a reasonable person on inquiry as to its stolen character. Such a judgment fails to adjudicate appellant guilty of possession of stolen property under conditions which make such having, receiving and concealing a criminal offense. Mathis v. State, 1938, 134 Fla. 352, 184 So. 89; Perkins v. State, 1936, 126 Fla. 707, 171 So. 655; Biesendorfer v. State, Fla.App.1969, 227 So.2d 322.

We have considered the remaining points raised on appeal by appellant, and determine them to be without merit.

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the sentence is vacated and set aside, and the cause remanded for entry of judgment consistent with the views herein expressed and imposition of sentence as the justice of the cause shall require.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.

CROSS, C. J., and McCAIN and REED, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 So. 2d 473, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 5367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cernance-v-state-fladistctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack