Case Name: Arthur REDFORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1984-09-06
Citations: 455 So. 2d 595
Docket Number: No. 83-937
Parties: Arthur REDFORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: FRANK D. UPCHURCH Jr., SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 455
Pages: 595–596

Head Matter:
Arthur REDFORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 83-937.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Sept. 6, 1984.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Larry B. Henderson, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard B. Martell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Day-tona Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The credibility of a defendant and the reasonableness of his explanation for his possession of recently stolen property (§ 812.022(2), Fla.Stat.) is a question of fact for the jury. Leslie v. State, 35 Fla. 171, 17 So. 555 (1895); Ridley v. State, 407 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). See also Teague v. State, 390 So.2d 405 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
AFFIRMED.
FRANK D. UPCHURCH Jr., SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur.