Case Name: Jack SOKOL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1969-01-14
Citations: 217 So. 2d 843
Docket Number: No. 68-556
Parties: Jack SOKOL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before PEARSON, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 217
Pages: 843–844

Head Matter:
Jack SOKOL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 68-556.
District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.
Jan. 14, 1969.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 11, 1969.
Shevin, Goodman & Holtzman, Miami, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Melvin Grossman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before PEARSON, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
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.