LEROY MCINTOSH, JIMMY LEE HAMPTON, JIM FLOYD BLAIR, APPELLANTS,
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 state proved a prima facie case of grand larceny and that the issue of inconsistent verdicts could not be raised for the first time on appeal.
Appellants were charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny and grand larceny. They were found guilty of larceny but not gu…
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 Inconsistent Verdicts cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants herein were charged with the crimes of breaking and entering a building with intent to commit a felony, *257to-wit, grand larceny, and grand larceny. They waived trial by jury; were tried by the judge who found them guilty of larceny but not guilty of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony.
On appeal they argue that their verdicts and sentences should be reversed because the state failed to prove a prima facie case of grand larceny.
We have reviewed the testimony given at trial and find that it was sufficient and competent to establish a prima facie case of grand larceny against all defendants. See Perry v. State, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 892.
The appellants also argue that a verdict of guilty of grand larceny rendered by a trial judge sitting without a jury must be reversed on appeal because it is inconsistent under the evidence with a verdict of not guilty of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony.
The record on appeal does not reveal that the áppellants ever presented the question of inconsistent verdicts to the trial judge for a ruling and they argue this point for the first time on appeal. We cannot reverse a trial judge for failure to rule on a question which was apparently never presented, argued or ruled upon by him. See Nelson v. State, Fla.1956, 85 So.2d 832.
The judgments of conviction and sentence herein appealed be and the same are, therefore,
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McINTOSH v. State, 219 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 1968)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 211 So. 2d 256.…
-
Rudisell v. State, 557 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…PER CURIAM. We conclude that there is no inconsistency of verdicts. See McKee v. State, 450 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Streeter v. State, 416 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); McIntosh v. State, 211 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); see also § 806.03(3), Fla.Stat. (1987). There was no error in the denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal. White v. State, 446 So. 2d 1031, 1035 (Fla.1984); Johnson v. State, 478 So. 2d 885 [*227] (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), appea…
Authorities Cited
- Nelson v. State, 85 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 1956)
- Glenwood Frederick Perry v. State, 177 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)