WILLIAM GARY HARVARD, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed Harvard's convictions for second-degree murder and possession of a knife in the commission of a felony, finding substantial competent evidence supported the jury verdict and no reversible error occurred.
Where substantial, competent evidence supports a jury verdict of conviction, the appellate court will not reverse based on claims of insufficient evidence.
[1] A judgment of conviction is presumed correct on appeal, and a defendant's claim of insufficient evidence cannot prevail where substantial, competent evidence supports the…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarvard was convicted by jury of second-degree murder and possession of a knife in the commission of a felony.…
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 Presumption Of Correctness Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks reversal of judgments of conviction based upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of second degree murder and possession of a knife in the commission of a felony. Appellant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain the convictions and that the trial court erred in denying his motions for a judgment of acquittal and for a new trial.
We have carefully considered appellant’s contentions in the light of the record and briefs and have concluded that reversible error has not been shown. See Heiney v. State, 447 So. 2d 210 (Fla.) (whether evidence fails to exclude all reasonable hypotheses of innocence is for jury to determine, and where there is substantial, competent evidence to support jury verdict, supreme court will not reverse judgment based upon verdict), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 920, 105 S.Ct. 303, 83 L.Ed.2d 237 (1984); Spinkellink v. State, 313 So. 2d 666 (Fla.1975) (judgment of conviction comes to supreme court with presumption of correctness; defendant’s claim of insufficiency of the evidence cannot prevail where there is substantial, competent evidence to support the verdict and judgment), cert. denied, 428 U.S. 911, 96 S.Ct. 3227, 49 L.Ed.2d 1221 (1976); E.Y. v. State, 390 So. 2d 776, 778 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (district court will not substitute its judgment for that of trier of fact nor pit its judgment against determinations of fact properly rendered by trier of fact).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Heiney v. State, 447 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 1984)
- Pulliam v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 911 (U.S. 1976)
- Simkins Indus., Inc. v. Moreira, 313 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1975)
- Spinkellink v. State, 313 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1975)
- Garrison v. Hudson, 469 U.S. 920 (U.S. 1984)
- Perry v. Lockhart, 469 U.S. 920 (U.S. 1984)
- E. Y. v. State, 390 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)