S.B. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

S.B. v. State

555 So. 2d 407, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2920, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6970, 1989 WL 149645

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 12, 1989

DocketNo. 88-1470

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 555 So. 2d 407 (S.B. 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

S.B. v. State, 555 So. 2d 407, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2920, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6970, 1989 WL 149645 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

LEVY, Judge.

Appellant, a juvenile, was found driving a stolen car less than twenty-four hours after the theft took place. The appellant testified at his adjudicatory hearing, that he thought that the car belonged to his friend’s uncle. However, the trial judge discounted appellant’s testimony, explaining: “[Fjrankly I don’t believe him.... I don’t believe him, or come any where close to believing him. And I find, beyond and to the exclusion of any reasonable doubt, that he used this car, without its owner’s permission. That is, that he operated this stolen vehicle_ lam satisfied that ... I can find him to be lying.... ”

The court correctly considered the applicability of the statutorily created inference that a person in possession of recently stolen property either knew or should have known that the property had been stolen. Section 812.022(3) Florida Statutes (1987). The appellant, however, points to the exculpatory language, contained within that statutorily created inference, that provides that the inference will not be drawn when a person has “satisfactorily explained” the possession of recently stolen property. We are not persuaded by this argument.

When the trial judge, sitting as the trier-of-fact, found the appellant’s testimony to be unbelievable, the court was also inherently finding that the appellant’s possession of the stolen property was not “satis[408]*408factorily explained”. See J.J. vs. State, 463 So.2d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).

Accordingly, we find that the trial court’s findings and rulings should be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

LEVY, Judge.

Appellant, a juvenile, was found driving a stolen car less than twenty-four hours after the theft took place. The appellant testified at his adjudicatory hearing, that he thought that the car belonged to his friend’s uncle. However, the trial judge discounted appellant’s testimony, explaining: “[Fjrankly I don’t believe him.... I don’t believe him, or come any where close to believing him. And I find, beyond and to the exclusion of any reasonable doubt, that he used this car, without its owner’s permission. That is, that he operated this stolen vehicle_ lam satisfied that ... I can find him to be lying.... ”

The court correctly considered the applicability of the statutorily created inference that a person in possession of recently stolen property either knew or should have known that the property had been stolen. Section 812.022(3) Florida Statutes (1987). The appellant, however, points to the exculpatory language, contained within that statutorily created inference, that provides that the inference will not be drawn when a person has “satisfactorily explained” the possession of recently stolen property. We are not persuaded by this argument.

When the trial judge, sitting as the trier-of-fact, found the appellant’s testimony to be unbelievable, the court was also inherently finding that the appellant’s possession of the stolen property was not “satis[408]*408factorily explained”. See J.J. vs. State, 463 So.2d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).

Accordingly, we find that the trial court’s findings and rulings should be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

555 So. 2d 407, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2920, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6970, 1989 WL 149645, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sb-v-state-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack