WALTER ANTHONY HAYES, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Walter Anthony Hayes, Jr. appeals his convictions for robbery and uttering a forged instrument. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions and sentence, rejecting Hayes's arguments regarding insufficient evidence, trial court evidentiary rulings, and constitutional challenges to the Criminal Punishment Code.
The court affirmed Hayes's convictions. The evidence was sufficient to submit the case to the jury, as the victim testified to the physical contact constituting force. The trial court properly admitted evidence of Hayes's drug use to establish motive. The Constitutional challenges to the Criminal Punishment Code lack merit, as previously rejected by the court.
[1] A sufficiency of the evidence argument not specifically raised in the trial court is waived on appeal.
[2] Evidence that a defendant bumped a victim from behind during a robbery is sufficient to establish the use of force for the offense of robbery.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he acted as a principal to the offense of robbery. This argument, however, was not specifically raised below, and as a result, it was waived.”
Establishes that Hayes failed to preserve his principal liability argument for appeal by not raising it at trial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHayes was convicted of robbery and uttering a forged instrument. The victim testified that her assailant bumped her from behind with his shoulder duri…
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 Motive For Crime cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Walter Anthony Hayes, Jr., appeals his convictions and sentence for robbery and uttering a forged instrument. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he acted as a principal to the offense of robbery. This argument, however, was not specifically raised below, and as a result, it was waived. See Terry v. State, 668 So. 2d 954 (Fla.1996).
Also, we find no merit to appellant’s argument that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal on the robbery charge. Appellant argued that the evidence was insufficient to show any use of force. The trial court, however, denied the motion noting that the victim testified that her assailant “bumped” her from behind with his shoulder and probably would have caused her to fall to the ground but for the fact that she was in between rows of cars when the robbery occurred. Taken in a light most favorable to the state, the case was properly submitted to the jury. See Woods v. State, 733 So. 2d 980 (Fla.1999).
Similarly, we find no basis to reverse on the ground that the trial court erred in permitting the prosecution to admit some evidence, in the form of excerpts of a statement given by appellant to police, regarding appellant’s drug use on the day of the robbery. The prosecution asserted that the evidence demonstrated that appellant’s motive for the robbery and subsequent uttering of a stolen check was to obtain money for purchasing drugs. The trial court found this evidence to be relevant to the issue of appellant’s motive for the robbery. We find no basis to reverse. See State v. Shaw, 730 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), and Caruso v. State, 645 So. 2d 389 (Fla.1994). Finally, with respect to appellant’s arguments that the Criminal Punishment Code is unconstitutional as a denial of due process and as constituting cruel and unusual punishment, these arguments have been rejected by this court. See Hall v. State, 773 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); see also Peterson v. State, 775 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).
AFFIRMED.
BOOTH, MINER and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stanford v. State, 833 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…nce, has not been preserved for appellate review where, as here, the defense counsel only offered a “boiler plate/bare bones” motion for judgment of acquittal at the trial below. See Stephens v. State, 787 So. 2d 747, 753 (Fla.2001); Hayes v. State, 780 So. 2d 918, 919 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Brandon v. State, 768 So. 2d 1189, 1190 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Sanders v. State, 765 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Whitfield v. Singletary, 730 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); James v. State, 745 So. 2d 1141, 1142 (Fla. 1st D…
-
Daric Jamahl Grimes v. State, 10 So. 3d 674 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Hayes v. State, 780 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Rumph v. State, 544 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). ORFINGER, EVANDER and COHEN, JJ., concur.…
-
Shavon L. Miller v. State, 788 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…es are not subject to a due process challenge because they are not constitutional rights and recognizing that a defendant can appeal an illegal sentence under the Code); see also Peterson v. State, 775 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Hayes v. State, 780 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Hall v. State, 773 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). We write only to clarify that a defendant is permitted to raise a constitutional challenge to a sentence in a Rule 3.800(b) motion. The rule states that “a motion to correct an…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Terry v. State, 668 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 1996)
- Woods v. State, 733 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 1999)
- Peterson v. State, 775 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Hall v. State, 773 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Caruso v. State, 645 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 1994)
- State v. Shaw, 730 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)