THINNELL DAWSON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Thinnell Dawson was convicted of rape, aggravated assault, robbery, and breaking and entering following a bench trial. On appeal, Dawson challenged his aggravated assault conviction on the ground that the victim knew the rifle used to threaten her was unloaded, thereby negating the element of fear required for that offense. The court affirmed, finding substantial evidence that the victim experienced fear from the threats with both the unloaded rifle and the knife.
The court held that substantial evidence supported the aggravated assault conviction. The victim could reasonably be placed in fear by threats with an unloaded rifle, which can be used as a deadly weapon by striking. Additionally, even if the rifle threat was insufficient, the assault with the knife alone provided ample evidence that the victim was placed in fear.
[1] An appellate court reviews the record for substantial competent evidence supporting a trial judge's finding of guilt.
[2] Conflicts and reasonable inferences from evidence are drawn in favor of a judgment of conviction on appeal.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“On appeal, we review the record for the purpose of determining whether it contains substantial competent evidence which, if believed, will support the trial judge's finding of guilt.”
Establishes the appellate standard of review for bench trial convictions, requiring substantial competent evidence to support the judgment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDawson was charged with rape, aggravated assault, robbery, and breaking and entering. At a non-jury trial, evidence showed that Dawson threatened the …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Well-Founded Fear Of Imminent Violence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Thinnell Dawson was charged in two in-formations with rape, aggravated assault, robbery and breaking and entering. After a non-jury trial, he was adjudged guilty on all counts and sentenced to concurrent terms in the state penitentiary of thirty years, twenty years, five years and fifteen years on the respective counts. The sole point raised on appeal is that the trial court erred in finding Dawson guilty of aggravated assault.
The evidence disclosed, and it was not refuted by the defense, that Dawson threatened the victim with a rifle, known to the victim to be unloaded, and also with a knife. Dawson’s argument is that since the victim knew that the rifle was not loaded, there was no evidence of the material element of fear.1
On appeal, we review the record for the purpose of determining whether it contains substantial competent evidence which, if believed, will support the trial judge’s finding of guilt. Crum v. State, 172 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1965); Starling v. State, 263 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1972). Generally, all conflicts and reasonable inferences from the evidence are to be drawn in favor of the judgment of conviction and the evidence is to be viewed in the light most favorable to support the conclusion of the trier of fact. Douglas v. State, 214 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1968); Dreger v. State, 228 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1969).
Our review of the record discloses sufficient evidence from which the trier of fact could reasonably infer that the victim was placed in fear by the defendant’s act of threatening her with the unloaded rifle.2 Even if the evidence in the record was not sufficient to support a finding that the victim was placed in fear by the assault with the unloaded gun, nevertheless, there is ample substantial evidence that the victim was placed in fear by the assault committed by the defendant with the knife.
Finding substantial evidence competent evidence to support the trial judge’s finding of guilt, we affirm.
Affirmed.
. State v. White, 324 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 1975), indicates that the crime of aggravated assault includes as one of its elements the victim’s well-founded fear that violence is imminent.
. We note that a gun may be used as a club, stick or bludgeon, and thus is a deadly weapon in this capacity as well as in discharging bullets. See, for example, Wade v. Wainwright, 266 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Delbert Lee Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 1981)…ify reversal when evidence is legally sufficient to support conviction); Wetherington v. State, 263 So. 2d 294 (Fla.3d DCA 1972). . Spinkellink v. State, 313 So. 2d 666 (Fla.1975); Wooten v. State, 361 So. 2d 167 (Fla.3d DCA 1978); Dawson v. State, 338 So. 2d 242 (Fla.3d DCA 1976). . One problem, of course, is whether an appellate court actually “reweighs” the evidence in reviewing a trial court’s grant or denial of a motion for new trial based on the ground that the verdict is contrary to the weight of the…
-
E. Y. v. State, 390 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…perly rendered by the trier of fact. State v. Smith, 249 So. 2d 16 (Fla.1971). All conflicts and reasonable inferences therefrom are resolved to support the judgment of conviction. Wooten v. State, 361 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Dawson v. State, 338 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Starling v. State, 263 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 268 So. 2d 905 (Fla.1972). Next, the appellant asserts the trial court erred in delegating authority to his counsel- or to fix restitution. The dispositional order o…
-
White v. State, 355 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…fully considered appellant’s contentions in the light of the record and briefs and have concluded that the evidence adduced was sufficient to support the court’s finding of guilt and that no reversible error has been made to appear. Dawson v. State, 338 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Amato v. State, 296 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Crum v. State, 172 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Ira Douglas v. State, 214 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- State v. White, 324 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 1975)
- Starling v. State, 263 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Dreger v. State, 228 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Wade v. Louie L. Wainwright, 266 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)