ANDERSON KIMBLE, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for breaking and entering, holding that a motion in arrest of judgment, presented only in a bill of exceptions, was not properly before the court for review.
No, the motion in arrest of judgment was not properly before the court because it was not included in the record proper. Therefore, the assignment of error based on its overruling cannot be considered.
“The third and only error assigned which is argued is based upon the overruling by the trial court of the motion in arrest of judgment made by defendant.”
Identifies the sole issue argued on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff in error was convicted of breaking and entering a building with intent to commit a felony and sentenced to two years imprisonment. The d…
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 Motion In Arrest Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
SI IA( 'KLBFOItD, J.
At the Spring term, 1902, of the Circuit Court of Jackson county, the plaintiff in error was indicted, tried and convicted of the crime of breaking and entering a building with intent to commit a felony, and was sentenced to be confined at hard labor ip the State prison for the period of two years. A reversal of this judgment is sought by writ of error. Three errors are assigned, but the first two are expressly abandoned by counsel for plaintiff in error in his brief, and hence are not before us for consideration. Tin1 third and only error assigned which is argued is based upon the overruling by the trial court of the motion in arrest of judgment made by defendant. This assignment can not be considered, for the reason that it has no proper foundation in the record. The motion in arrest of judgment is evidenced to this court only in and by the bill of exceptions, when it is matter of record, and should have been included in the record proper in the case, and we are not authorized to recognize, it when so presented. Kelly v. State, 44 Fla....., 33 South. Rep. 235; Caldwell v. State, 43 Fla.....,30 South. Rep. 814.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment of-the court below is hereby affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Peadon v. The State of Frorida, 46 Fla. 124 (Fla. 1903)…ppellate court only by bill of exceptions can not be entertained or considered. Roberson v. State, 42 Fla. 223, 28 South. Rep. 424; Caldwell v. State, 43 Fla. 545, 30 South. Rep. 814; Kelly v. State, 44 Fla. 441, 33 South. Rep. 235; Kemble v. State, 45 Fla. 40, 34 South. Rep. 5. Finding no error in the record, the judgment of the court below is hereby affirmed. Hocker and Shackleford, JJ., concur. Carter, P. J., and Maxwell and Cockrell, JJ., concur in the opinion. [Note. — The record in this case doe…
-
Will Massey v. State, 50 Fla. 109 (Fla. 1905)…Fla, 124, 35 South. Rep. 204; Roberson v. State, 42 Fla. 223, 28 South. Rep. 424; Brown v. State, 42 Fla. 184, 27 South. Rep. 869; Caldwell v. State, 43 Fla. 545, 30 South. Rep. 814; Kelly v. State, 44 Fla. 441, 33 South. Rep. 235; Kimble v. State, 45 Fla. 40, 34 South. Rep. 5. If parties desire us to review the action of the trial court in ruling upon a motion in arrest of judgment, they must see to it that the motion and the ruling of the court thereon be exhibited to us in the record proper. 2. The s…