Case ID: so2d_361/html/0731-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. DAUKSCH, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Otis N. NEWMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 76-1682.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    Feb. 28, 1978.
    Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Frank B. Kessler, Chief, App. Div., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
    Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Basil S. Diamond, and Benedict P. Kuehne, Asst. Attys. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. Russo v. State, 340 So.2d 1273 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).

ANSTEAD and MOORE, JJ., concur.

DAUKSCH, J., dissents.

DAUKSCH, Judge,

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent. While the defendant was properly tried and convicted of receiving stolen property the judgment suffers the same technical defect as the judgment in Spurlock v. State, 281 So.2d 586 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973) in that it fails to recite knowledge on the defendant’s part. Therefore, I would remand for the entry of a new proper judgment. Brinson v. State, 345 So.2d 780 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).