Home
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 812.022 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 812.022 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 812.022

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 812
THEFT, ROBBERY, AND RELATED CRIMES
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 812.022
812.022 Evidence of theft or dealing in stolen property.
(1) Proof that a person presented false identification, or identification not current with respect to name, address, place of employment, or other material aspects, in connection with the leasing of personal property, or failed to return leased property within 72 hours of the termination of the leasing agreement, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that such property was obtained or is now used with intent to commit theft.
(2) Except as provided in subsection (5), proof of possession of property recently stolen, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person in possession of the property knew or should have known that the property had been stolen.
(3) Proof of the purchase or sale of stolen property at a price substantially below the fair market value, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person buying or selling the property knew or should have known that the property had been stolen.
(4) Proof of the purchase or sale of stolen property by a dealer in property, out of the regular course of business or without the usual indicia of ownership other than mere possession, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person buying or selling the property knew or should have known that it had been stolen.
(5) Proof that a dealer who regularly deals in used property possesses stolen property upon which a name and phone number of a person other than the offeror of the property are conspicuously displayed gives rise to an inference that the dealer possessing the property knew or should have known that the property was stolen.
(a) If the name and phone number are for a business that rents property, the dealer avoids the inference by contacting such business, prior to accepting the property, to verify that the property was not stolen from such business. If the name and phone number are not for a business that rents property, the dealer avoids the inference by contacting the local law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction where the dealer is located, prior to accepting the property, to verify that the property has not been reported stolen. An accurate written record, which contains the number called, the date and time of such call, and the name and place of employment of the person who verified that the property was not stolen, is sufficient evidence to avoid the inference pursuant to this subsection.
(b) This subsection does not apply to:
1. Persons, entities, or transactions exempt from chapter 538.
2. Used sports equipment that does not contain a serial number, printed or recorded materials, computer software, or videos or video games.
3. A dealer who implements, in a continuous and consistent manner, a program for identification and return of stolen property that meets the following criteria:
a. When a dealer is offered property for pawn or purchase that contains conspicuous identifying information that includes a name and phone number, or a dealer is offered property for pawn or purchase that contains ownership information that is affixed to the property pursuant to a written agreement with a business entity or group of associated business entities, the dealer will promptly contact the individual or company whose name is affixed to the property by phone to confirm that the property has not been stolen. If the individual or business contacted indicates that the property has been stolen, the dealer shall not accept the property.
b. If the dealer is unable to verify whether the property is stolen from the individual or business, and if the dealer accepts the property that is later determined to have been stolen, the dealer will voluntarily return the property at no cost and without the necessity of a replevin action, if the property owner files the appropriate theft reports with law enforcement and enters into an agreement with the dealer to actively participate in the prosecution of the person or persons who perpetrated the crime.
c. If a dealer is required by law to complete and submit a transaction form to law enforcement, the dealer shall include all conspicuously displayed ownership information on the transaction form.
(6) Proof that a person was in possession of a stolen motor vehicle and that the ignition mechanism of the motor vehicle had been bypassed or the steering wheel locking mechanism had been broken or bypassed, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person in possession of the stolen motor vehicle knew or should have known that the motor vehicle had been stolen.
History.s. 8, ch. 77-342; s. 1, ch. 2004-341; s. 1, ch. 2006-107.

F.S. 812.022 on Google Scholar

F.S. 812.022 on Casetext

Amendments to 812.022


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 812.022
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 812.022.



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

M. JOSEPH, v. STATE, 275 So. 3d 1266 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . The State argues that it is entitled to the inference set forth in section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes . . . Here, the State is not entitled to the inference set forth in section 812.022(2). . . . Therefore, the state could not rely on the inference of guilt set forth in section 812.022(2). Id. . . .

DOBBINS, v. STATE, 275 So. 3d 1260 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . See § 812.022(2), Fla. . . .

A. L. v. STATE, 275 So. 3d 819 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . Section 812.022(2) provides that "proof of possession of property recently stolen, unless satisfactorily . . . When the State's case is based entirely upon the statutory inference set forth in section 812.022(2), . . . receive the benefit of the statutory inference, the State must have established "pursuant to section 812.022 . . . the recently stolen property, it was error to rely on the statutory inference set forth in section 812.022 . . . In conclusion, the State was not entitled to the statutory inference set forth in section 812.022(2) . . .

QUINONES, v. STATE, 271 So. 3d 1165 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . See § 812.022(2), Fla. . . .

IN RE STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES- REPORT, 256 So. 3d 1316 (Fla. 2018)

. . . . § 812.022(1), Fla. Stat. . . . . § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. . . . . § 812.022(3), Fla. Stat. . . . person buying or selling the property knew or should have known that the property had been stolen. § 812.022 . . . that the person buying or selling the property knew or should have known that it had been stolen. § 812.022 . . .

J. LAMB, v. STATE, 246 So. 3d 400 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . See § 812.022(2), Fla. . . .

C. T. a v. STATE, 238 So. 3d 857 (Fla. App. Ct. 2017)

. . . circumstantial, the State relied upon the statutory inference of guilty knowledge provided by section 812.022 . . . knew the car he was driving was stolen, the State relied solely on the inference set forth in section 812.022 . . . The inference provided by section 812.022(2) is sufficient to support a theft conviction. . . . 3d DCA 1981), that where the State's case is based entirely upon the inference arising under section 812.022 . . . flea market rendered the state's case, which was based solely on the inference provided by Section 812.022 . . .

K. P. v. STATE, 230 So. 3d 608 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . The State’s case rested upon the inference in section 812.022, Florida Statutes (2015), that “proof of . . . See § 812.022(2). Because K.P. . . .

DEJESUS, v. STATE, 225 So. 3d 285 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . Pursuant to section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (2011), "proof of possession of prop- ' erty recently . . .

A. D. P. v. STATE, 223 So. 3d 428 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . See § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (2014). . . . person in possession of the property knew or should have known that the property had been stolen.” § 812.022 . . .

HORVATH, v. STATE, 217 So. 3d 1045 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . This instruction tracks the language of section 812.022, Florida Statutes. The case of Jones v. . . .

W. JEUDY, v. STATE, 209 So. 3d 37 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . Section 812.022(3), Florida Statutes (2014), creates the statutory inference that the trial court used . . .

In STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES- REPORT NO., 190 So. 3d 614 (Fla. 2016)

. . . . § 812.022(1), Fla. . . . . § 812.022(2), .Fla. Stat. . . . . § 812.022(3), Fla. Stat. . . . Give if applicable. § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. . . . Give if applicable. § 812.022(2), Fla. . . .

C. GLEASON, v. STATE, 188 So. 3d 35 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . The trial court instructed the jury on the presumption provided for in section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes . . . it was the presumption provided for in Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Criminal) 14.2 and section 812.022 . . .

HADLEY, v. STATE, 152 So. 3d 848 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . Although this instruction was a correct statement of the law as set forth in section 812.022(3), Florida . . .

MIDGETTE, v. STATE, 152 So. 3d 767 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . This instruction is based on section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (2006), which provides that “proof . . .

S. M. a v. STATE, 150 So. 3d 1179 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . .” § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (2012). . . .

In STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES- INSTRUCTION, 140 So. 3d 992 (Fla. 2014)

. . . . § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. . . . Give if applicable. § 812.022(3), Fla. Stat. . . . Give if applicable. § 812.022(h), Fla. Stat. . . . Give if applicable. § 812.022(5), Fla. Stat. . . . Give if applicable. § 812.022(6), Fla. Stat. . . .

In STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES- INSTRUCTION, 121 So. 3d 520 (Fla. 2013)

. . . . § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. . . . Give if applicable. § 812.022(3), Fla. Stat. . . . Give if applicable. § 812.022(4.), Fla. Stat. . . . Give if applicable. § 812.022(5), Fla. Stat. . . . Give if applicable. § 812.022(6), Fla. Stat. . . .

BLACKMON, v. STATE Of, 121 So. 3d 535 (Fla. 2013)

. . . .” § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (2009). . . .

RIVERS, v. STATE, 124 So. 3d 247 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . See § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (2008); Fla. Std. Jury Insto. (Crim.) 14.1. . . .

L. S. a v. STATE, 120 So. 3d 55 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . offered no evidence to support the charge that L.S. stole the firearm other than the provision of section 812.022 . . . Section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (2011), provides: Except as provided in subsection (5), proof of . . . Our research has shown that in cases applying the section 812.022(2) presumption, the time between the . . .

YUDIN, v. STATE, 117 So. 3d 457 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . The State’s case against Yudin is entirely based on section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (2009), which . . .

In STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES- REPORT NO., 109 So. 3d 721 (Fla. 2013)

. . . . § 812.022(1), Fla. Stat. . . . . § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. . . . . § 812.022(3), Fla. Stat. . . . . § 812.022(1), Fla. Stat. . . . . § 812.022(5), Fla. Stat. . . .

SINGLETON, v. STATE, 105 So. 3d 542 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . See § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (2008). . . .

HUGHES, v. STATE, 81 So. 3d 597 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . Section 812.022(3), Florida Statutes (2009) provides, “Proof of the purchase or sale of stolen property . . .

CANADY, v. STATE, 73 So. 3d 785 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . See § 812.022(3), Fla. . . .

METZ, v. STATE, 59 So. 3d 1225 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . Consistent with subsection 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (2009), the trial court instructed the jury that . . .

PARKS, v. STATE, 54 So. 3d 1079 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . Section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (2003), provides that “[p]roof of possession of property recently . . . Parks also claims that counsel failed to advise him about the “presumption” of section 812.022(2), and . . .

WARD, v. STATE, 40 So. 3d 854 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . Section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (2008) provides that “proof of possession of property recently stolen . . .

MORALES, v. STATE, 35 So. 3d 122 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . See § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (2009). . . .

VARGAS, v. STATE, 34 So. 3d 44 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . .” § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (2004). . . .

HARRIELL, v. STATE, 29 So. 3d 372 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . See § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (2008). Affirmed. MAY and CIKLIN, JJ., concur. . . . .

DIEGUEZ, v. STATE, 18 So. 3d 1262 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . . § 812.022, Fla. Stat. (2008); J.J. v. State, 463 So.2d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); P.N. v. . . .

L. WILKINS, v. STATE, 18 So. 3d 8 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . See § 812.022(2) and (3), Fla. Stat. (2007). Appellant pawned the items within hours of the theft. . . . Section 812.022(2) and (3) provide: (2) [P]roof of possession of property recently stolen, unless satisfactorily . . .

SMITH, v. STATE, 15 So. 3d 849 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . See § 812.022(2), Fla. . . .

In STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES- REPORT NO., 986 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 2008)

. . . . § 812.022(1), Fla. Stat. . . . . § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. . . . . § 812.022(8), Fla. Stat. . . . . § 812.022(5), Fla. Stat. . . . . § 812.022(6), Fla. Stat. . . .

M. D. S. v. STATE, 982 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . The inference in section 812.022(2) does not apply under these circumstances. . . .

WALDRON, v. STATE, 979 So. 2d 449 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . jury the standard instruction on proof of possession of stolen property, which is based on section 812.022 . . . “To receive the benefit of the statutory inference, the State must establish, pursuant to section 812.022 . . . Section 812.022(2) provides in relevant part: "proof of possession of property recently stolen, unless . . .

In STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES- REPORT NO., 962 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 2007)

. . . . § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. . . . Give if applicable. § 812.022(3), Fla. Stat. . . . Give if applicable. § 812.022(1), Fla. Stat. . . . Give if applicable. § 812.022(5), Fla. Stat. . . . See § 812.022(6), Fla. Stat. (2006). . . .

KERR, v. STATE, 954 So. 2d 692 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . entirely”); and (2) a statutory presumption that the possessor knew the property had been stolen, see § 812.022 . . . guilt from unexplained possession of recently stolen goods also supports conviction for burglary”). . § 812.022 . . .

DRIGGERS, v. STATE, 935 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . See § 812.022(2), Fla. . . .

BRONSON Jr. v. STATE, 926 So. 2d 480 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . Bronson Jr. contends that the State’s lack of evidence is not cured by the inference provided by section 812.022 . . . To receive the benefit of the statutory inference, the State must establish, pursuant to section 812.022 . . . Accordingly, the State was not entitled to add the section 812.022(2) statutory inference to its quantum . . .

In STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES No., 915 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 2005)

. . . Inferences; give if applicable § 812.022(1), Fla. Stat. . . . Inferences; give if applicable § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. . . .

In STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES NO., 911 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 2005)

. . . Inferences; give if applicable § 812.022(1), Fla. Stat. . . . Inferences; give if applicable § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. . . .

S. KITTLES, v. STATE, 897 So. 2d 517 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . The state relied on section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (2002), to establish that Kittles knew or should . . . 924 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 889 So.2d 72 (Fla.2004), we described the operation of the section 812.022 . . . Graham, 238 So.2d 618 (Fla.1970), applied to the inference of guilty knowledge created by section 812.022 . . . A line of cases following the reasoning of Graham holds that a section 812.022(2) inference, without . . . relevant to show Kitties’s guilty knowledge concerning the stolen jewelry, in combination with the section 812.022 . . .

WALKER, v. STATE, 896 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 2005)

. . . Both jury instructions are derived from section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (2002), which reads verbatim . . . The State counters by arguing that the basis for giving the instruction was section 812.022(2), not the . . . In Edwards, we held that section 812.022(2) was constitutional and did not violate a defendant’s right . . . The history of section 812.022(2) was discussed by the Fourth District in Jackson v. . . . See, e.g., § 812.022(1), Fla. . . .

BERTONE, v. STATE, 870 So. 2d 923 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . statutory element that Bertone knew or should have known the saws were stolen, the state relied on section 812.022 . . . Graham, 238 So.2d 618 (Fla.1970), applied to the inference of guilty knowledge created by section 812.022 . . . A line of cases following the reasoning of Graham holds that a section 812.022(2) inference, without . . . State, 492 So.2d 748, 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), a case which holds that the section 812.022(2) inference . . . Patten is consistent with pr e-Graham, pre-section 812.022(2) cases. . . .

WILSON, v. STATE, 884 So. 2d 74 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . Section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (2002), provides that “[pjroof of possession of property recently . . . This court has previously examined the application of section 812.022(2) in Coleman v. . . . the defendant’s] explanation was unsatisfactory,” id., and that the inference arising under section 812.022 . . .

J. H. a v. STATE, 868 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . that the state’s case rests wholly on circumstantial evidence and the inference of guilt under section 812.022 . . . Section 812.022(2) provides as follows: (2) Proof of possession of property recently stolen, unless satisfactorily . . . (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), “that where a conviction for theft was based on nothing more than the section 812.022 . . . flea market rendered the state’s case, which was based solely on the inference provided by Section 812.022 . . .

TATUM, v. STATE, 857 So. 2d 331 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . special jury instruction on a presumption of guilt in dealing in stolen property, based on section 812.022 . . . IMPROPER PREDICATE Section 812.022(4) states that if the State proves that a dealer in property purchases . . . of such evidence, the First District held it was error to give a jury instruction based on section 812.022 . . . situation before us, we conclude that before a trial court may give an instruction based on section 812.022 . . . Thus, giving the requested special instruction tracking the language of section 812.022(4) in this instance . . .

STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES- SUBMISSION, 850 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 2003)

. . . . § 812.022(1), Fla-Stat. . . . Inferences; give if applicable § 812.022(2), FlaStat. . . .

HAUGABROOK, v. STATE, 827 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . Section 812.022(2) creates an evidentiary inference that “possession of property recently stolen, unless . . .

SMITH, v. STATE, 742 So. 2d 352 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . . § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat.; T.S.R.; Scobee v. State, 488 So.2d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). . . . (Emphasis added) . § 812.022(2) provides: Proof of possession of property recently stolen, unless satisfactorily . . .

JACKSON, v. STATE, 736 So. 2d 77 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . Section 812.022(2) was enacted by the 1977 legislature as part of the overall revision of the criminal . . . Section 812.022(2) adopts the terminology of the common law rule. . . . Application of these rules of construction leads to the conclusion that section 812.022(2) should be . . . These cases hold that where a conviction for theft was based on nothing more than the section 812.022 . . . The section 812.022(2) inference does not extend to this charge. . . .

YOUNGS, v. STATE, 736 So. 2d 85 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . Responding to this argument, the state relies on section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes, which provides . . . Fla. 4th DCA 1999), we held that in Chapter 812 theft and dealing in stolen property cases, section 812.022 . . . in the early morning, after a nighttime theft, is another facet of proof, in addition to the section 812.022 . . .

SCOTT, v. STATE, 722 So. 2d 256 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . Section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (1997); Currington v. . . .

DELLECHIAIE, v. STATE, 734 So. 2d 423 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . See § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (1991). . . .

M. CURRINGTON, v. STATE, 711 So. 2d 218 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . Section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (1997), the model for the proposed jury instruction, provides: Proof . . .

L. BOONE, v. STATE, 711 So. 2d 594 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . (Crim.) 148; § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat (1995). . . .

VERMETTE, v. S. LUDWIG,, 707 So. 2d 742 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . officers probable cause to believe that Ludwig had dealt in stolen property in violation of section 812.022 . . .

M. P. W. v. STATE, 702 So. 2d 591 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . In addition, section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes(1993), provides “[p]roof of possession of property . . .

ADAMS, v. STATE, 693 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . .” § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (1991); see Z.S. v. . . .

WATSON, v. STATE, 687 So. 2d 75 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . . § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (1995); Horn v. State, 433 So.2d 670 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). . . .

V. CAPALDO, v. STATE, 679 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 1996)

. . . See § 812.022(3), Fla. . . .

PERSAUD, v. STATE, 659 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . Defendant next challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, and the state’s reb-anee on subsection 812.022 . . .

G. GOIN, v. COMMISSION ON ETHICS,, 658 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . , 381 So.2d 696 (Fla.1980), the supreme court considered whether the following provision of section 812.022 . . . and the fact presumed (the defendant knew the goods were stolen), the inference created by section 812.022 . . .

A. JONES, v. STATE, 648 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . Such evidence was admissible pursuant to section 812.022, Florida Statutes (1993). Affirmed. . . .

MOORE, v. STATE, 623 So. 2d 842 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . .§ 812.022, Fla.Stat. (1991). . . .

DUNCAN, v. STATE, 616 So. 2d 140 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . See section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (1989). . . .

BARFIELD, v. STATE, 613 So. 2d 507 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . Nevertheless, over the objection of defense counsel, pursuant to section 812.022(3), Florida Statutes . . .

STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS- CRIMINAL CASES NO., 603 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 1992)

. . . [Page A-56] Inferences; give if applicable F.S. 812.022(1) Proof that a person presented false identification . . . Inferences; give if applicable F.S. 812.022(2) Proof of possession of recently stolen property, unless . . .

STATE v. JACKSON,, 601 So. 2d 615 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . . § 812.022(2), Fla.Stat. (1989). . . .

T. S. R. a v. STATE, 596 So. 2d 766 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . Section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes, provides that proof of possession of recently stolen property, . . .

G. R. a v. STATE, 564 So. 2d 207 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . State, 407 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); § 812.022(2), Fla.Stat. (1989). . . .

E. TURNER, v. STATE, 560 So. 2d 1342 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . Section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (1985), provides: Proof of possession of property recently stolen . . .

G. C. a v. STATE, 560 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . See also § 812.022(2), Fla.Stat. (1987). . . . .

S. B. a v. STATE, 555 So. 2d 407 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . Section 812.022(3) Florida Statutes (1987). . . .

In STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES, 543 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 1989)

. . . Inferences; give if applicable P.S. 812.022(1) Proof that a person presented false identification not . . . Inferences; give if applicable F.S. 812.022(2) Proof of possession of recently stolen property, unless . . .

In F. W. B. a v. STATE, 538 So. 2d 969 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . Although Section 812.022, Florida Statutes (1987), permits the inference that a person in possession . . . statutory language relating to proof of possession of recently stolen property, as provided in section 812.022 . . .

GUERRERO, v. STATE, 532 So. 2d 75 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . See § 812.022(2), Fla.Stat. (1985). . . .

STATE v. GRIMMAGE,, 522 So. 2d 523 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . The state announced its intention to rely upon the presumption provided by section 812.022(2), Florida . . . Only after factual inquiry will the propriety of the application of section 812.022(2) to this case be . . .

VALDEZ, v. STATE, 492 So. 2d 750 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . state’s case consisted of circumstantial evidence and a reliance upon the inference provided by section 812.022 . . . stolen items] rendered the state’s case, which was based solely on the inference provided by section 812.022 . . . property that he knows or should know was stolen shall be guilty of a felony of the second degree.... . 812.022 . . .

PATTEN, v. STATE, 492 So. 2d 748 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . Section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (1985), provides: Proof of possession of property recently stolen . . .

SCOBEE, v. STATE, 488 So. 2d 595 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . court’s giving of the following standard jury instruction on theft, an instruction taken from Section 812.022 . . . Section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes, supra. The latter was the charge given here. . . .

THOMPSON, v. STATE, 480 So. 2d 179 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . See § 812.022(2), Fla.Stat. (1983). . . . See § 812.022(4), Fla.Stat. (1983). . . .

N. C. Jr. a v. STATE, 478 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . Section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (1983), provides that proof of possession of recently stolen property . . .

BOWEN v. L. BOWEN,, 471 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 1985)

. . . See § 812.022(2), Fla.Stat. (1983) (statutory inference that a person proved to be in possession of recently . . .

MOHLER, v. STATE, 466 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . deny his motion for directed verdict of acquittal, especially in view of the presumption under section 812.022 . . . shown that the accused was in possession of recently stolen property and the presumption under section 812.022 . . .

C. COLEMAN, v. STATE, 466 So. 2d 395 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . Section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (1981), provides as follows: (2) Proof of possession of property . . . Sec. 812.022, Fla.Stat. (1979). Edwards v. State, 381 So.2d 696 (Fla.1980). . . .

ADDERLY, v. STATE, 462 So. 2d 574 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . Wyo.1980), and thus raised the inference of guilty knowledge that the car was stolen created by sec. 812.022 . . .

J. J. a v. STATE, 463 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . . § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (1983). . . .

P. L. C. a v. STATE, 458 So. 2d 800 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . . § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (1981). . . .

REDFORD, v. STATE, 455 So. 2d 595 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . defendant and the reasonableness of his explanation for his possession of recently stolen property (§ 812.022 . . .

W. R. a v. STATE, 450 So. 2d 349 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . Carroll, 404 So.2d 844 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); § 812.022(2), Fla.Stat.(1983). . . .

R. D. S. a v. STATE, 446 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . this one for theft, the state is aided by the statutory inference of guilty knowledge supplied by Sec. 812.022 . . . Section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (1983) provides: Proof of possession of property recently stolen . . .

TOWNSLEY, v. STATE, 443 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . . § 812.022(3), Fla.Stat. . . .

P. N. a v. STATE, 443 So. 2d 193 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . Section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (1981). . . .

L. McNEIL L. v. STATE, 433 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . . § 812.022, Florida Statutes. . . .

P. CHAMBERLAND, v. STATE, 429 So. 2d 842 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . . § 812.022, Fla.Stat. (1981). . . .