HILMER BURDETTE SANDINE, 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 court held that the trial judge correctly admitted evidence tending to prove the defendant used different names and that the evidence supported the grand larceny conviction.
The defendant was convicted of grand larceny based on jury verdict. He appealed, arguing the admission of physical evidence and the failure to instruc…
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 Petit Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
Hilmer Burdette Sandine appeals a judgment of conviction of the crime of grand larceny and the sentence entered thereon. The adjudication was based upon a jury verdict. He has presented four points. The first two of these are directed to the admission of physical evidence. The defendant maintains that the exhibits were irrelevant or rendered inadmissible by the method in which they were secured. In each instance the relevancy and admissibility of the evidence is supported by the record.
Appellant’s fourth point maintains that the trial judge erroneously failed to include a charge upon the lesser included offense of petty larceny. The market value of the property, the defendant was alleged to have stolen, was proved to be many hundreds of dollars. The court is not required to instruct upon an issue which is not presented by any reasonable view of the evidence. Jarrell v. State, 135 Fla. 736, 185 So. 873 (1939); State v. Brown, Fla. App.1960, 118 So.2d 574.
Only appellant’s third point presents any substantial question. He contends that the court erred in admitting certain physical evidence which tended to prove that he used different names upon various occasions. He was charged with using one of these names in his scheme to obtain the property he was charged with stealing. We hold that the trial judge correctly held the evidence to be relevant. It tended to prove the preparation for the plan subsequently used. Williams v. State, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 654.
No point has been raised as to the propriety of the sentence entered. Furthermore, our review of the record reveals that the sentence is not excessive or illegal.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Estrella Louise Smith v. State, 311 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…f the defendant was not material. One who throws acid on a group of people is guilty of assault and battery in the absence of (1) insanity or (2) self-defense. Neither of these defenses is apparent on this record. See Sandine v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 634. See also Bradley v. State, 82 Fla. 108, 89 So. 359 (1921) and Hopson v. State, 127 Fla. 243, 168 So. 810 (1936). In addition, neither could be made to appear by the testimony of taunts from the victims.…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Jarrell v. State, 135 Fla. 736 (Fla. 1939)
- State v. Ike Brown, 118 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)