CHARLES W. WRIGHT, APPELLANT,
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.
The court held that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish the identity of the culprit, and the appellate court's role is to review for sufficient competent, substantial evidence supporting the verdict.
Appellant was convicted of armed robbery. The victim positively identified the appellant as the robber. The appellant testified, offering a different …
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 Appellate Review Standards cases and more on FLexlaw
By this appeal, the appellant seeks review of a conviction and sentence for armed robbery. The only point urged for reversal is that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish tire identity of the culprit. The appellant admits that the victim of the robbery, Claude Bowman, positively identified him as the robber. Although the appellant took the stand and gave a different account of his presence on the night of the robbery, he offered no corroborating witnesses to establish an alibi, nor did he in any other fashion present a defense which might have raised a reasonable doubt in the mind of the trier of the facts.
The judgment of conviction arrived in this court with a presumption of correctness. See: Inman v. State, 139 Fla. 789, 191 So. 12; San Fratello v. State, Fla.App.1963, 154 So.2d 327; Crum v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 24.
Once the issue of the identity of a criminal defendant was decided by the trier of facts, the sole authority of this appellate court is to review the record to determine whether it contains sufficient, competent, substantial evidence which, if believed, would support the verdict of guilty. See: Dixon v. State, 143 Fla. 277, 196 So. 604; Eizenman v. State, Fla.App.1961, 132 So.2d 763; Crum v. State, supra. As stated *265by the Supreme Court of Florida m State v. Sebastian, Fla.1965, 171 So.2d 893:
* * * H= * *
“[4] We know of no statute or case law in this jurisdiction which requires more than one zvitness in a criminal r cas.? nor do we believe it proper for an appellate court to reverse a conviction of guilt upon the basis of insufficiency of the State’s evidence merely because the State produced but one witness and his testimony was contradicted by the defendant. * * * ” [emphasis supplied]
J*i Sfi ijí ífc
We find ample evidence from the record to support the finding of the trier of fact.
Therefore, pursuant to the law of this State, we are required to affirm the conviction, judgment and sentence under review.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (26 total)
-
Crummie v. State, 204 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…robbery is supported by sufficient competent evidence. We have carefully reviewed the record, considered the oral arguments and briefs of the parties and concluded that no reversible error has been made to appear. See Wright v. State, Fla.App.1966, 182 So. 2d 264; Solomon v. State, Fla.App.1962, 145 So. 2d 492. Affirmed.…
-
Hargrett v. State, 255 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…rpetrator of the crime does not present reversible error in view of the holding of the Supreme Court of Florida in State v. Sebastian, Fla.1965, 171 So. 2d 893. See also Loprince v. State, Fla.App.1969, 218 So. 2d 212; Wright v. State, Fla.App.1966, 182 So. 2d 264. In Sebastian, supra, the supreme court held: “We know of no statute or case law ir( this jurisdiction which requires more than one witness in a criminal case nor do we believe it proper for an appellate court to reverse a conviction of guilt upon…
-
O'Neal Henry Pearson v. State, 221 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)…d testimony of one man, in effect, was the basis of the conviction herein.’ In light of the opinion of the Supreme Court of Florida, in State v. Sebastian, Fla.1965, 171 So. 2d 893, and in the opinion of this court, in Wright v. State, Fla.App.1966, 182 So. 2d 264, this is no reason to find reversible error. The appellant also urges that the State should have been required to reveal the name of the confidential informant who led the State’s witness to the time and place where the purchase of marijuana was com…
Previewing 3 of 26 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Crum v. State, 172 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- State v. Sebastian, 171 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 1965)
- Eizenman v. State, 132 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Armos Dixon v. State, 143 Fla. 277 (Fla. 1940)
- Fratello v. State, 154 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Inman v. State, 139 Fla. 789 (Fla. 1939)