JULIAN LEROY GIBSON, 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 appellate court affirmed a robbery conviction, holding that the evidence presented was sufficient to establish a prima facie case, including the identification of the defendant. The court found that the issue of identity was a factual matter for the trial judge to decide.
Yes, the evidence was sufficient to establish a prima facie case, and the identification of the defendant was adequately supported by competent substantial evidence.
“This appeal by the defendant below from a conviction of robbery presents the contention that the evidence was insufficient to establish a prima facie case, and specifically that the evidence was in insufficient on the issue of identification of the defendant.”
This quote outlines the central argument of the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was convicted of robbery after a trial without a jury. The defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove a pri…
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 Identification Of Defendant cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal by the defendant below from a conviction of robbery presents the contention that the evidence was insufficient to establish a prima facie case, and specifically that the evidence was in*129sufficient on the issue of identification of the defendant. We hold the contention is without merit, and affirm. The issue of identity was one of fact to be determined by the trial judge, before whom the cause was tried without a jury. See Henderson v. State, 94 Fla. 318, 113 So. 689; Martin v. State, 100 Fla. 16, 129 So. 112; Wright v. State, Fla.App.1966, 182 So.2d 264.
In compliance with our function to determine whether the record contains sufficient, competent, substantial evidence which, if believed, would support the verdict (Wright v. State, supra), we conclude that the finding of the trial court on the issue of identity and the consequent holding of the guilt of the defendant are supported by competent substantial evidence, and that no reversible error has been shown.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kinsey v. State, 237 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…proximity of the scene of the crime [which were lost by the culprit while fleeing the scene] is ample, competent, sufficient evidence to support the question of identity. Wright v. State, Fla.App.1966, 182 So. 2d 264; Gibson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 208 So. 2d 128, 129; Jenkins v. State, Fla.App.1968, 211 So. 2d 242. The victim in the other larceny testified as to the value of the articles taken [a medical bag and its contents] on the date of the event. This evidence is sufficient to sustain the burden of pr…
-
McMILLION v. State, 213 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed on the authority of Gibson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 208 So. 2d 128.…
-
Robinson v. State, 222 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…evidence which, if believed, would support the verdict. We [*440] have concluded that the trial court’s finding as to the defendant’s identity and guilt are supported by sufficient, competent and substantial evidence. Gibson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 208 So. 2d 128. No reversible error appearing, the judgment and sentence appealed are affirmed. Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Henderson v. State, 94 Fla. 318 (Fla. 1927)
- Town of Boynton v. State, 100 Fla. 16 (Fla. 1930)
- Wright v. State, 182 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)