FRANCISCO S. ROSARIO, 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.
The court held that fingerprint evidence was sufficient to support the finding that the defendant committed a subsequent burglary, justifying probation revocation.
The defendant's probation was revoked based on evidence that his fingerprints were found on liquor bottles taken from behind the bar of a burglarized …
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 Fingerprint Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment and sentence entered upon the revocation of Rosario’s probation. We affirm on the ground that the fingerprint evidence was sufficient to support the finding that he had committed a subsequent burglary.1 See D.J.C. v. State, 400 So. 2d 830 (Fla.3d DCA 1981); M.R. v. State, 399 So. 2d 56 (Fla.3d DCA 1981); Henderson v. State, 304 So. 2d 537 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); Dargans v. State, 259 So. 2d 782 (Fla.2d DCA 1972).
The trial judge orally announced findings that the defendant had also violated the conditions which required restitution and payment of the costs of supervision. We need not address the appellant’s challenges to these conclusions because there is no showing that he was harmed by them. No formal order of revocation is in the record on appeal,2 and it is obvious that the defendant’s commission of the substantive crime alone was sufficient to support and in fact was responsible for the conclusions reached below. See Parrish v. State, 402 So. 2d 530 (Fla.3d DCA 1981); Scherer v. State, 366 So. 2d 840 (Fla.2d DCA 1979); compare, Aaron v. State, 400 So. 2d 1033 (Fla.3d DCA 1981); Jess v. State, 384 So. 2d 328 (Fla.3d DCA 1980).
Affirmed.
. Rosario’s prints were found on liquor bottles taken from behind the bar of a burglarized restaurant, an area to which the public had no access.
. Compare Parrish v. State, 402 So. 2d 530 (Fla.3d DCA 1981), and cases cited, in which unsustained grounds were stricken from a written order which was before us. In this case, we do not know what grounds were stated in the order below or, indeed, whether such an order was even ever entered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rivero v. State, 35 So. 3d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…d 388, 389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). However, where fingerprints or other evidence is found in an area generally not open to the public, we have upheld convictions in circumstantial evidence cases. For example, this Court found in Rosario v. State, [*185] 406 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), a circumstantial evidence case, that the defendant’s fingerprints, which were found on liquor bottles located behind the bar of a burglarized restaurant, in an area where the public had no access, were sufficient to support the f…
-
Johnson v. State, 408 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Rosario v. State, 406 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (Case No. 81-856, opinion filed November 24, 1981); Santini v. State, 404 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Pinder v. State, 396 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Scherer v. State, 366 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).…
-
Jaslen Michel v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…See Chamberlain v. State, 881 So. 2d 1087, 1097-98 (Fla. 2004) (finding fact that trial judge formed a fixed opinion as to the culpability of a co-defendant insufficient to warrant disqualification); Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330(c); Rosario v. State, 406 So. 2d 106, 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (“[I]t is obvious that the defendant’s commission of the substantive crime alone was sufficient to support and in fact was responsible for the conclusions reached below.”) (citations omitted). As the written order of probati…
Authorities Cited
- Bennie Jess, Jr. v. State, 384 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Aaron v. State, 400 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Scherer v. State, 366 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Lincoln R. Henderson v. State, 304 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- M. R. v. State, 399 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Dargans v. State, 259 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)
- D.J.C. v. State, 400 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Cleveland Parrish v. State, 402 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)