Rhinehart v. State, 840 So. 2d 456

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Leroy Rhinehart, appeals from his conviction for delivery of cocaine. He argues that the trial court fundamentally erred when it failed to instruct the jury on the element of knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance pursuant to Chicone v. State, 684 So.2d 736 (Fla.1996).

At appellant‘s trial, appellant did not present any evidence or argue that he did not know the illicit nature of the substance he delivered. Appellant‘s counsel did not request that the trial court give a Chicone instruction.

Pursuant to this court‘s recent decision in Lee v. State, 835 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), we find that this was not fundamental error. We, therefore, affirm appellant‘s conviction.

AFFIRMED.

POLEN, C.J., KLEIN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Rhinehart v. State

Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida

Date Published: Mar 26, 2003

Citations: 840 So. 2d 456; 2003 WL 1619469; 4D01-3232

Docket Number: 4D01-3232

Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.