WILLIAM "BILL" POLERO, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Appellant's conviction for five counts of forgery was affirmed where he failed to demonstrate reversible error regarding the denial of judgment of acquittal, suppression of electronic surveillance evidence, or sufficiency of evidence.
The trial court did not commit reversible error in denying judgment of acquittal, denying suppression of electronic surveillance evidence, or finding sufficient evidence to support the forgery convictions.
Appellant was charged with five counts of forgery and five counts of grand theft, second degree. He was convicted by jury on all forgery counts and ac…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Electronic Surveillance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was charged by information with five counts of forgery and five counts of grand theft, second degree. He was found guilty by the jury of forgery on all counts and not guilty of grand theft on all counts.
Appellant was sentenced to thirty months in the state penitentiary on each of the forgery counts, each to run concurrently.
In this appeal appellant contends that the trial court erred in (1) failing to grant a judgment of acquittal; (2) failing to grant appellant’s Motion to suppress evidence derived from electronic surveillance; and (3) in ruling that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict of conviction.
We have carefully considered appellant’s contentions in light of the record, briefs and argument of counsel, and have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated. Rodriquez v. State, 297 So. 2d 15 (Fla.1974); Franco v. State, 376 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Hudson v. State, 368 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied 378 So. 2d 345 (Fla.1979); State v. Buffa, 347 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Jones v. State, 343 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied 352 So. 2d 172 (Fla.1977); Abbott v. State, 334 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. denied 345 So. 2d 420 (Fla.) cert. denied 431 U.S. 968, 97 S.Ct. 2926, 53 L.Ed.2d 1064 (1977); Marshall v. State, 321 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).
Therefore, the judgment and sentence are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Rodriguez v. State, 297 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 1974)
- Dalton Abbott v. State, 334 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- United States Steel Corp. v. United Mine Workers of Am., 431 U.S. 968 (U.S. 1977)
- Bolden v. United States, 431 U.S. 968 (U.S. 1977)
- Hudson v. State, 368 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Kellogg v. Found, 376 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979)
- Franco v. State, 376 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Esaw Jones v. State, 343 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Sonny Marshall and Silvia P. Hanson v. State, 321 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- State v. Sebastian (Benny) Buffa, 347 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)