From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sokol v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Feb 11, 1969
217 So. 2d 843 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1969)

Opinion

No. 68-556.

January 14, 1969. Rehearing Denied February 11, 1969.

Appeal from the Criminal Court of Record, Dade County, Carling Stedman, J.

Shevin, Goodman Holtzman, Miami, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Melvin Grossman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.


This is an appeal from a conviction of bribery as set forth in § 838.011, Fla. Stat., F.S.A. The information was originally quashed by the trial judge, but his decision was reversed by this court. See State v. Sokol, Fla.App. 1968, 208 So.2d 156. Upon trial of the cause by the court, the appellant was found guilty and sentenced to one year imprisonment.

On this appeal the appellant questions the sufficiency of the evidence, particularly the evidence concerning intent, to sustain the conviction.

An examination of the record reveals the evidence to be sufficient to sustain the conviction. The totality of circumstances establishes the criminal intent of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the judgment and sentence are affirmed upon authority of Zalla v. State, Fla. 1952, 61 So.2d 649; Eizenman v. State, Fla.App. 1961, 132 So.2d 763; Crum v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 172 So.2d 24. See also State v. Sebastian, Fla. 1965, 171 So.2d 893.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Sokol v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Feb 11, 1969
217 So. 2d 843 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1969)
Case details for

Sokol v. State

Case Details

Full title:JACK SOKOL, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Feb 11, 1969

Citations

217 So. 2d 843 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1969)

Citing Cases

G.D. v. State

However, "totality of the circumstances" is not a burden of proof, and the judge's use of that phrase does…