Mehlman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mehlman v. State

211 So. 2d 56, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5423

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 21, 1968·No. No. 67-787·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was charged by information with bribery in violation of § 838.011, Fla. Stat., F.S.A. He pleaded not guilty, was tried without a jury and convicted as charged. Thereupon he was sentenced to a term of two years in the state penitentiary. Appellant seeks reversal upon two grounds. Firstly, he contends that the state failed to sustain its burden of proving that appellant proposed that prosecution witness, Celana, omit or alter his testimony at a pending trial for appellant’s alleged violation of the Florida Lottery Statute. Appellant’s second ground is that the court erred in finding that the state had sustained its burden of proof that no entrapment existed.

We have considered all of appellant’s contentions in the light of the record, briefs and argument of counsel, and have found them to be without merit. See: Mitchell v. Gillespie, Fla.1965, 172 So.2d 819; Carter v. State, Fla.1963, 155 So.2d 787; Johnson v. State, Fla.App.1958, 101 So.2d 180; Parrish v. State, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 356.

No reversible error having been made to appear, the judgment and sentence are affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was charged by information with bribery in violation of § 838.011, Fla. Stat., F.S.A. He pleaded not guilty, was tried without a jury and convicted as charged. Thereupon he was sentenced to a term of two years in the state penitentiary. Appellant seeks reversal upon two grounds. Firstly, he contends that the state failed to sustain its burden of proving that appellant proposed that prosecution witness, Celana, omit or alter his testimony at a pending trial for appellant’s alleged violation of the Florida Lottery Statute. Appellant’s second ground is that the court erred in finding that the state had sustained its burden of proof that no entrapment existed.

We have considered all of appellant’s contentions in the light of the record, briefs and argument of counsel, and have found them to be without merit. See: Mitchell v. Gillespie, Fla.1965, 172 So.2d 819; Carter v. State, Fla.1963, 155 So.2d 787; Johnson v. State, Fla.App.1958, 101 So.2d 180; Parrish v. State, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 356.

No reversible error having been made to appear, the judgment and sentence are affirmed.

Affirmed.

Mehlman v. State, 211 So. 2d 56, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5423 (Fla. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

211 So. 2d 56 (Mehlman v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related