CLEVELAND LARRY JENKINS, 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.
Cleveland Jenkins was convicted after a bench trial of larceny of a truck and robbery, receiving concurrent sentences of ten years and three years respectively. On appeal, Jenkins challenged the sufficiency of evidence, the denial of closing argument, the denial of his mistrial motion, and the overall sufficiency of evidence, but the court rejected all arguments and affirmed the conviction.
The court held that no reversible error occurred on any of the four grounds raised. The evidence of identity was sufficient based on positive eyewitness identification, the failure to afford closing argument was not error absent a request at trial, the admission of the fingerprint card in a bench trial did not render the trial unfair and was admissible for comparison purposes, and the overall sufficiency of evidence was not questioned.
“A review of the record establishes that the defendant was positively identified by an eyewitness who had an adequate opportunity to observe the appellant.”
Establishes the sufficiency of evidence as to the defendant's identity, rejecting Jenkins's first point on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJenkins was tried in a non-jury proceeding on two informations: one charging larceny of a truck and one charging robbery. He was positively identified…
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 Eyewitness Identification cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was found guilty after a non-jury trial on two separate informations. The first charged larceny of a truck and the second charged robbery. He was sentenced to ten years imprisonment on the robbery count and three years on the count for larceny of the truck. The trial judge ordered that the three year sentence run concurrently with the ten year term.
On this appeal the appellant raises four points. The first urges the insufficiency of the evidence as to larceny. The second urges prejudice because the court failed to tender the attorney for appellant the opportunity for closing argument. The third point urges an error upon the court’s denial of appellant’s motion for a mistrial. The fourth point argues the sufficiency of the evidence in its entirety.
The main thrust of appellant’s first point is that the evidence is insufficient as to the identity of the defendant. A review of the record establishes that the defendant was positively identified by an eyewitness who had an adequate opportunity to observe the appellant. No error is shown. See State v. Sebastian, Fla.1965, 171 So.2d 893.
Appellant’s second point does not present reversible error because there was no request for closing argument at the time of the trial. Willoughby v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 203 So.2d 10. Cf. State v. Jones, Fla. 1967, 204 So.2d 515.
The basis of appellant’s third point is that a fingerprint card, admitted into evidence in this non-jury trial, showed a prior criminal record of the appellant. A police technician testified he had taken the prints prior to the commission of the offense for which the appellant was being tried. There is no question but that the evidence was relevant and was admissible under the rule laid down in Williams v. State, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 654. The only question is whether or not the showing in this non-jury trial that the appellant had a previous criminal record was a basis for a mistrial. It is clear that the admission of the card as a standard for comparison of other fingerprint evidence was not such as to render the trial basically unfair. See also Kelly v. State, 145 Fla. 491, 199 So. 764 (1941); Talley v. State, 160 Fla. 593, 36 So.2d 201 (1948); Urga v. State, Fla.App.1963, 155 So.2d 719.
Appellant’s fourth point is likewise without merit.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Truluck Herbert Johnson v. State, 348 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…ny presented in view of Ms. Greene’s and Mr. [*648] Chester’s testimony. See Martin v. State, 100 Fla. 16, 129 So. 112 (1930); Wright v. State, 182 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); Stuckey v. State, 199 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967); Jenkins v. State, 208 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); Cason v. State, 211 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); Smith v. State, 221 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); Gilbert v. State, 311 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Affirmed.…
-
Lincoln R. Henderson v. State, 304 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…265 So. 2d 685. An examination of the record clearly illustrates that identity was one of the major issues in the case sub judice and thus we find the testimony hereinabove to be relevant and therefore admissible. See Jenkins v. State, Fla.App.1968, 208 So. 2d 276. [*538] Defendant secondly contends that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of guilt in that the only evidence presented which tended to identify the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime was a latent fingerprint from the inside…
-
Carlton W. Christie v. State, 246 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)…occurred prior to the primary offense for which the accused was being tried. Mahone v. State, Fla.App.1969, 222 So. 2d 769; White v. State, Fla.App.1969, 218 So. 2d 484; Gagnon v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So. 2d 337; Jenkins v. State, Fla.App.1968, 208 So. 2d 276; Bogan v. State, Fla.App.1969, 226 So. 2d 110; Blackburn v. State, Fla.App.1968, 208 So. 2d 625; Reed v. State, Fla.App.1969, 224 So. 2d 364; Flowers v. State, Fla.App.1969, 222 So. 2d 786; Avis v. State, Fla.App.1969, 221 So. 2d 235; Coppolino v. S…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- State v. Jones, 204 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1967)
- Talley v. State, 160 Fla. 593 (Fla. 1948)
- State v. Sebastian, 171 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 1965)
- Diamante Urga v. State, 155 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Kelly v. State, 145 Fla. 491 (Fla. 1941)
- Willoughby v. State, 203 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)