JAMES SMITH, ALIAS "DEEP SAND,"
v.
STATE
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's judgment against a defendant convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor. The court found no errors in the record or assignments of error presented by the defendant.
No errors were found in the record or in the assignments of error presented by the defendant.
“We have examined the record with the assignments of error before us, as well as brief of counsel for defendant, and no error having been made to appear the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed.”
This quote directly states the court's finding after reviewing the case and its ultimate decision.
The defendant was charged by information with breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor. He pleaded not guilty, was found guilty by a …
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 Breaking And Entering With Intent To Commit A Misdemeanor cases and more on FLexlaw
The parties in this opinion will be referred to as they appeared in the lower court as State and defendant.
An information was filed in the Circuit Court of Sarasota County, Florida, on May 2, 1936, charging the defendant with breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor, and upon arraignment entered a plea of not guilty. He was placed upon trial.and was by a jury found guilty and was by the lower court sentenced to serve a period of twelve months in the common jail of Sarasota County, Florida. The record fails to show the filing of a motion for a new trial and an order of the court thereon.
Defendant was adjudged insolvent, a' supersedeas order and bond were entered and given and the cause is here by review on writ of error. We have examined the record with the assignments of error before us, as well as brief of counsel for defendant, and no error having been made to appear the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown, J., concur.
Ellis, C. J., and Terrell and ‘Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dobson v. Crews, 164 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)…of New York v. Lesley, supra; Goldring v. Reid et al., 60 Fla. 78, 53 So. 503; Haile v. Mason Hotel & Investment Co., 71 Fla. 469, 71 So. 540; Tomasello v. Walton, 100 Fla. 710, 129 So. 840; State ex rel. L & L Freight Lines v. Barrs, 129 Fla. 668, 176 So. 756.) Some of the cases decided by that court involved voluntary nonsuits similar to the one announced by the appellees-plaintiffs herein, and others dealt with involuntary nonsuits. As the case law of Florida has developed under the statute, the princi…
-
Peaslee v. Michalski, 167 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)…granting or allowing a nonsuit is interlocutory and not [*244] a final judgment and such nonsuit is not reviewable on appeal in the absence of, and appeal from, a final judgment of dismissal. State ex rel. L & L Freight Lines v. Barrs, 129 Fla. 668, 176 So. 756; Whitaker v. Wright, 100 Fla. 282, 129 So. 889; Downing v. Weaver-Laughridge Lumber Co., 94 Fla. 1096, 114 So. 666; Goldring v. Reid, 60 Fla. 78, 53 So. 503; Mizell Live Stock Co. v. J. J. McCaskill Co., 57 Fla. 118, 49 So. 501. Cf. Conner v. Wagner…