EMIL JAY STEHLI, 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.
The appellate court affirmed a conviction for operating a gambling house and bookmaking, finding no merit in the appellant's claims of an insufficient affidavit for a search warrant, failure to elect counts, insufficient evidence, and erroneous jury charges.
No, the affidavit was sufficient, the State was not required to elect counts, the evidence was sufficient, and the trial judge did not err in refusing jury charges.
“Appellant, who was convicted of operating a gambling house and bookmaking and upon judgment and sentence of the court given a one year sentence on each charge to run concurrently, appeals from said judgment and sentence.”
This quote establishes the appellant's conviction and the nature of the charges he is appealing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was convicted on two counts: operating a gambling house and bookmaking. He received a one-year concurrent sentence on each charge. The a…
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 Election Of Counts cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, who was convicted of operating a gambling house and bookmaking and upon judgment and sentence of the court given a one year sentence on each charge to run concurrently, appeals from said judgment and sentence. He had been charged in a two count information and urges error in the proceedings below in the following particulars: (1) that the affidavit upon which the search warrant was issued was insufficient, (2) that the State failed to make an election as to which count of the information it was proceeding under, (3) that the evidence failed to establish that he was operating a gambling room, and (4) that the trial judge erred in refusing to give certain charges to the jury.
We have examined the record and find that the points urged by the appellant are not well taken. See: Chacon v. State, Fla.1958, 102 So.2d 578; Channell v. State of Florida, Fla.App.1958, 107 So.2d 284; Moorman v. State, 157 Fla. 267, 25 So.2d 563; and Febre v. State, 158 Fla. 853, 30 So.2d 367.
Therefore, the judgment and sentence are hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Watson v. State, 190 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1966)…ate ex rel. Arnold v. Revels, 113 So. 2d 218 (Fla.); Robinson v. State, 161 So. 2d 578 (Fla.); Raulerson v. State, 102 So. 2d 281 (Fla.); Carr v. State, 136 So. 2d 28 (Fla.App.); Lester v. State, 37 Fla. 382, 20 So. 232; and Gans v. State (Fla.App.) 134 So. 2d 257. We have carefully evaluated the questions and the remarks of the trial judge which are complained of by Appellants. We do not find that the trial judge exceeded his duty or passed beyond the pale of neutrality or impartiality. None of the question…
-
Marr v. State, 470 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…at judges should ordinarily refrain from expressing comments relating to the weight, character or credibility of the evidence adduced, Abrams v. State, 326 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Raulerson v. State, 102 So. 3d 281 (Fla.1958); Gans v. State, 134 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961), but not as divesting a trial judge from exercising his or her inherent discretion to so instruct when the standard instructions do not adequately inform the jury of the relevant law. The majority also refers to the deletion from…
-
Lester v. State, 458 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…to that of appellant is kidnapping under Florida law. It could even be construed as an expression of belief in this particular defendant’s guilt. In either event, it is reversible error. Raulerson v. State, 102 So. 2d 281 (Fla.1958); Gans v. State, 134 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961). It appears undisputed from the record that appellant last touched the gun involved in these offenses when he took it from the glove compartment and put it on the front seat before getting out of the car in which appellant and hi…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Febre v. State, 158 Fla. 853 (Fla. 1947)
- Edelmira Chacon v. State, 102 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 1957)
- Channell v. State, 107 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- Moorman v. State, 157 Fla. 267 (Fla. 1946)