Court Opinion

ID: 9460586
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:55:10.457659+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:41.826376
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM:
The appellant continues to insist that the record fails to reveal that he knew the check involved in this ease was stolen “at the time the crime was committed.” As we read the statements made by the appellant in the circumstances disclosed by the record and quotations in our opinion, we are convinced that he acknowledged to the court that he knew the check was stolen when he possessed it and also when he accompanied Kittrell in an effort to cash it. Indeed he asserted that he was assisting Kittrell and that they were “going to split the money.”
It is ordered that the petition for rehearing filed in the above entitled and numbered cause be and the same is hereby denied.