EDUARDO TORANCO, A/K/A EDUARDO TORANZO, 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.
Eduardo Toranco was convicted after a bench trial of burglary of a structure with a firearm and robbery with a firearm. He appealed on grounds of double jeopardy, evidentiary error regarding a witness's prior inconsistent statement, and insufficiency of circumstantial evidence, but the appellate court affirmed his convictions and sentences.
The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding that double jeopardy did not bar prosecution, the evidentiary ruling did not constitute harmful error, and the verdict was supported by the evidence.
[1] A subsequent prosecution for offenses is not barred by double jeopardy when those offenses were initially raised as a basis for probation revocation but subsequently with…
[2] The admission of a witness' prior inconsistent statement is not reversible error when the statement was referred to in a police report furnished to defense counsel prior…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Appellant was tried by the court without a jury and convicted and sentenced for the crimes of burglary of a structure with a firearm and robbery with a firearm.”
Establishes the charges and mode of trial in the lower court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was tried by the court without a jury and convicted of burglary of a structure with a firearm and robbery with a firearm. The state had init…
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 Sufficiency Of Circumstantial Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was tried by the court without a jury and convicted and sentenced for the crimes of burglary of a structure with a firearm and robbery with a firearm. Appellant seeks reversal of the convictions and sentences on the grounds that 1) double jeopardy barred his subsequent prosecution for the instant offenses which were initially raised, but later withdrawn by the state, as a basis for revoking his probation; 2) the court erred in permitting the admission into evidence of a witness’ prior inconsistent statement which was not revealed during discovery, although it was referred to in a police report furnished to defense counsel prior to trial; and 3) the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to support his convictions.
The grounds relied on by appellant for reversal have been considered in the light of the record, briefs and arguments of counsel and we find that no reversible error has been demonstrated. The record shows that the verdict is supported by the evidence and that the rulings of the trial court challenged by appellant do not constitute harmful error. See Green v. State, 463 So. 2d 1139 (Fla.1985); Brumbley v. State, 453 So. 2d 381, 384-85 (Fla.1984); State v. Young, 217 So. 2d 567, 571 (Fla.1968), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 853, 90 S.Ct. 112, 24 L.Ed.2d 101 (1969); State v. Justice, 451 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); State v. Jones, 425 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); State v. Banks, 418 So. 2d 1059, 1060 (Fla. 2d DCA), pet. for rev. denied, 424 So. 2d 760 (Fla.1982); Floyd v. State, 361 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 368 So. 2d 1366 (Fla.1979).
Therefore, the judgments of conviction and sentences are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Young, 217 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 1968)
- Brumbley v. State, 453 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 1984)
- Young v. Florida, 396 U.S. 853 (U.S. 1969)
- Caffey v. Missouri, 396 U.S. 853 (U.S. 1969)
- Green v. State, 463 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 1985)
- State v. Jones, 425 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- State v. Roy Ozzie Banks, 418 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Floyd v. State, 361 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- State v. Justice, 451 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)