WILLIE POLLOCK, JR., WILLIE JAMES QUARTERMAN, AND EARL WILLIAM JONES, APPELLANTS,
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.
This case involves an appeal by three defendants convicted of armed robbery. The appellate court affirmed their convictions, finding sufficient evidence to support the trial court's verdict.
Yes, the evidence presented at trial is sufficient to support the convictions of the appellants for armed robbery.
“After carefully reviewing the entire record in this case we have concluded that it discloses sufficient evidence to support the trial judge's finding that the crime was committed and that the defendants were guilty as charged.”
This quote establishes the appellate court's conclusion regarding the sufficiency of the evidence.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWillie Pollock, Jr., Willie James Quarterman, and Earl William Jones were charged with armed robbery. They pleaded not guilty and were tried in a non-…
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 Armed Robbery Elements cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants were tried on a plea of not guilty to an information charging them with armed robbery. A non jury trial was had in the Criminal Court of Record for Dade County, Florida. The trial judge found each of the defendants guilty as charged. They were sentenced to serve in the State Penitentiary as follows: Pollock for ten years, Quarterman for five years, and Jones for three years.
Each of the appellants has appealed his judgment, sentence and order denying his motion for new trial.
Basically the appellants contend that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction.
After carefully reviewing the entire record in this case we have concluded that it discloses sufficient evidence to support the trial judge’s finding that the crime was committed and that the defendants were guilty as charged.
We see no reason why we should disturb the judgments and sentences of these defendants. It was not error for the trial judge to deny the motions for new trial.
The judgments and sentences are affirmed.
Affirmed.