FRANK MICHAEL VITIELLO, 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 robbery conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find the defendant guilty based on a witness's positive identification.
Yes, the evidence was sufficient because there was substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict, including a positive identification by a State witness.
“this court will as a rule not reverse a judgment based upon a verdict returned by the jury and approved by the trial judge, when there is substantial evidence to support the verdict rendered”
Establishes the standard of review for sufficiency of evidence on appeal when a jury verdict has been approved by the trial judge.
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 tried and found guilty of robbery by a jury. The State presented a witness who positively identified the appellant as one of the par…
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 Jury Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was tried and found guilty - by a jury of the .crime of robbery. He was' adjudged guilty and sentenced to the State Prison for ten years, whereupon, this appeal was taken. The only point presented by the appellant questions the sufficiency of the evidence as to his identification.
The test to be applied has been fully set forth in McNeil v. State, 104 Fla. 360, 139 So. 791, 792:
“ * * * this court will as a rule not reverse a judgment based upon a verdict returned by the jury and approved by the trial judge, when there is substantial evidence to support the verdict rendered * * *
The record before us reveals a positive identification by a witness for the State of the appellant as one of the participants in the crime. The evidence is competent and substantial.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mortoro v. Maloney, 580 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…itled to the securities held by the creditor who has been paid. Boley v. Daniel, 72 Fla. 121, 72 So. 644 (1916). It is true, as argued by First Florida, that equitable subrogation is not available to one who simply pays his own debt. Meyer v. Levy, 169 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). That is not present in this case. Mortoro assigned a $317,000 note (an asset) to Sun Bank to pay off and be released from any previous obligation to such bank. It is true that the bank required Mortoro to guarantee the new obliga…
-
Rolle v. State, 711 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Bruton v. State, 220 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969) (positive identification by one witness sufficient to support a conviction); Yant v. State, 192 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); Vitiello v. State, 169 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964).…
Authorities Cited
- Odie McNeil v. State, 104 Fla. 360 (Fla. 1932)
- Yoder v. Maddox, 104 Fla. 354 (Fla. 1932)