GROVER CLEVELAND TADLOCK, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
The court held that the trial court's judgment must conform to the jury's verdict, and a judgment that does not include the jury's finding of prior knowledge is incorrect.
The defendant was charged with intentionally receiving stolen property. The jury found the defendant guilty of receiving stolen property as charged, w…
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 Trial Court Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
DREW, E. HARRIS (Retired),
Associate Judge.
In the information it was charged that the defendant [and others] “. . . did intentionally receive, retain, dispose of or aid in the concealment of stolen property, to-wit: one (1) lot of cigarettes, of the value of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) or more, the property of JACKSONVILLE TRANSFER and STORAGE, INC., without the consent of the owner or person entitled to possession, knowing that it had been stolen, or under such circumstances as would induce a reasonable man to believe that the property was stolen, contrary to Section 812.031, Florida Statutes.”
The verdict of the jury found that the defendant was “Guilty of receiving stolen property as charged ”. (Emphasis supplied).
After denying post trial motions the court adjudged the defendant guilty of “Receiving stolen property”. The judgment contained no finding that the defendant had prior knowledge that the property was stolen as found by the jury. In this respect the judgment does not follow, nor is it in accordance with the verdict.1 The judgment is vacated and this cause is remanded to the trial court for the entry of a correct judgment. The other points argued here have been duly considered and found by us to be without merit.
Affirmed with directions for the entry of a correct judgment.
McCORD, Acting C. J., and MASON, ERNEST E., Retired Associate Judge, concur. . Anderson v. State, 338 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Also see Spurlock v. State, 281 . So. 2d 586 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); Biesendorfer v. State, 227 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); and Eagle v. State, 270 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kirkland v. State, 357 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)…ise the judgment which is, as required, the same as the verdict, also fails to state that appellant received the property with knowledge of its stolen character, and is defective. Eagle v. State, 270 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); Tadlock v. State, 343 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), both cases in which the cause was remanded for entry of a corrected judgment. In Russo v. State, 340 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), the court held that a judgment adjudicating appellant guilty of buying or receiving or aiding…
-
Alphonsia Canty v. State, 347 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…ry as to the first contention. The record supports the last contention but it is only necessary that the judgment and sentence be amended to add after the word “robbery”, the words “while carrying a deadly weapon, to wit: a knife.” Tadlock v. State, 343 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Affirmed with directions for the entry of a correct judgment. BOYER, C. J., and McCORD, J., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Biesendorfer v. State, 227 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)
- Anderson v. State, 338 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Eagle v. State, 270 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)