DONALD JOSEPH HENNESSY, 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.
Donald Hennessy was convicted of robbery by jury verdict and appeals his conviction and sentence. The Florida appellate court upheld the conviction, finding sufficient evidence of guilt and no trial court error.
The court affirmed the conviction, finding: (1) evidence relating to the co-perpetrator was admissible; (2) sufficient evidence supported the verdict based on witness identification and circumstantial evidence; and (3) no error appeared in the prosecutor's remarks given the incomplete record and lack of contemporaneous defense objection.
“Upon judicial review of the record on appeal, at this stage of the proceedings the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom are entitled to be reviewed in a light most favorable to the verdict.”
Establishes the standard of review on appeal—evidence viewed favorably to the jury verdict.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn September 10, 1966, the Anstine Realty office was robbed by two men. Shortly thereafter, Hennessy and a companion were stopped by Miami Shores poli…
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 Robbery cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks review of his conviction and sentence, entered by the trial court pursuant to a jury verdict finding him guilty of the crime of robbery.
*38Upon judicial review of the record on appeal, at this stage of the proceedings the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom are entitled to be reviewed in a light most favorable to the verdict. See: Crum v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 24; Walden v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 191 So.2d 68.
Examining the record on appeal in light of these principles, the following is found: On September 10, 1966 at approximately 5 :00 o’clock P.M., the Anstine Realty office was robbed by two men. Shortly thereafter the appellant and a companion were stopped by the Miami Shores police while they were walking east on N.E. 90th Street, near the location of the robbery. When they were stopped, and before the police announced their authority, the appellant’s companion threw his hands in the air and stated: “Don’t shoot, I won’t give you any trouble”. Upon the police announcing their authority, the appellant ran. Upon searching the companion, the police found certain items taken in the robbery. Both men were charged by information with robbery, to which they pleaded not guilty. At the time of trial, the companion waived jury trial and the court proceeded with the jury trial of the appellant. During the trial, the victim was unable to identify the appellant as one of the two men who committed the robbery, but did identify the companion as one of the perpetrators of the crime. Other witnesses identified the appellant as being in the company of the one identified, both shortly before and after the robbery, and identified him as leaving the premises at the time of the robbery.
The appellant urges that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence collateral facts relating to his companion; that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict; and that the prosecutor made improper, prejudicial remarks in closing argument. We find no error and affirm.
As to the introduction of the evidence relating to the co-perpetrator of the crime, this was' admissible. See: Green v. State, 40 Fla. 191, 23 So. 851; Sons v. State, Fla.App.1958, 99 So.2d 888; Chaudoin v. State, Fla.App.1960, 118 So.2d 569. Eye witnesses placed the defendant at the scene of the crime at the time the crime was committed and with one who was identified as a co-perpetrator of the crime. Shortly after the crime was committed, the defendant was apprehended in the vicinity of the area wherein the crime was committed. At the time of his apprehension, he fled and the person in whose company he was found was possessed of the goods taken in the robbery. There appears to be sufficient evidence in the record and all reasonable inferences therefrom to support the conviction. See: Green v. State, supra; Dewey v. State, 135 Fla. 443, 186 So. 224; Chason v. State, 148 Fla. 540, 4 So.2d 691; Daniels v. State, Fla.1959, 108 So.2d 755; Mackiewicz v. State, Fla.1959, 114 So.2d 684; Chaudoin v. State, supra; 13 Fla.Jur., Evidence, § 417.
No error is shown in the prosecutor’s remarks. The complete transcript is not before us; no record has been reconstructed; and the appellant failed to show that counsel for the defense made appropriate objection or request for instruction during the trial. See: Mendez v. State, Fla. 1949, 39 So.2d 468; Winnemore v. State, Fla.App.1963, 150 So.2d 277; Peel v. State, Fla.App.1963, 154 So.2d 910.
Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the conviction, judgment and sentence is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sylvia v. State, 210 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…e evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom are in favor of the verdict. Crum v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 24; Mangel v. State, Fla.App.1965, 179 So. 2d 888; Walden v. State, Fla.App.1966, 191 So. 2d 68; Hennessy v. State, Fla.App.1967, 198 So. 2d 37. The first error complained of is that the trial court committed error in failing to grant a severance because of the antagonistic positions of the several defendants. This is a discretionary matter with a trial judge. Suarez v. State, 95 Fla. 42,…
-
Plymale v. State, 201 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)….1966, 192 So. 2d 794. If the evidence in the record on appeal, viewed in a light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, supports the order he should be affirmed. See: Crum v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 24; Hennessy v. State, Fla.App.1967, 198 So. 2d 37. Examining this record in light of these principles, it is apparent that under the circumstances the appellant’s counsel at the 1961 proceedings was not guilty of any incompetency upon the information furnished him prior to the pleas. See: McCray v…
-
Gilbert v. State, 311 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…idence of identification of the second man involved in the criminal episode (in addition to evidence of identification of the defendant) was not prejudicial error. McClendon v. State, Fla. 1967, 196 So. 2d 905, 910; Hennessy v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 198 So. 2d 37 (cert. den. 389 U.S. 994, 88 S.Ct. 496, 19 L. Ed.2d 489). The court was eminently correct in denying the defendant’s motion for directed verdict of acquittal. The defendant did not testify, and presented no evidence. He challenges the sufficiency of…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (13 total)
- Crum v. State, 172 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Green v. State, 40 Fla. 191 (Fla. 1898)
- In re Florida BAR, 108 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 1959)
- Chason v. State, 148 Fla. 540 (Fla. 1941)
- Dewey v. State, 135 Fla. 443 (Fla. 1938)
- Chaudoin v. State, 118 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Blackburn v. Cochran, 114 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 1959)
- MacKiewicz v. State, 114 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 1959)
- Peel v. State, 154 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- State of Fla. & the Taxpayers v. City OF Fort Pierce, 155 Fla. 58 (Fla. 1944)