HENRY LEE JONES, APPELLANT,
v.
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 conviction for narcotics possession and sale, finding the evidence sufficient and noting the appellant failed to preserve the issue for appeal by not moving for a new trial.
Yes, the evidence was sufficient, and no, the issue was not properly preserved for appeal because the appellant failed to move for a new trial in the lower court.
“The sole question raised on review is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain appellant's conviction.”
This quote establishes the central issue presented to the appellate court.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was convicted of possession and sale of narcotics in a nonjury trial. The sole issue raised on appeal was the sufficiency of the evidenc…
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 Motion For New Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant seeks review of his conviction on a charge of possession and sale of narcotics. The sole question raised on review is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain appellant’s conviction.
We have reviewed the transcript of the testimony given before the trial judge who served as the finder of fact in this nonjury trial, and we are satisfied that the evidence adduced by the State sustains the judgment of conviction. Moreover, the record fails to reflect that the defendant made a motion for a new trial. Accordingly, he cannot now assert the sufficiency of the evidence as ground for reversal. Kimble v. State, 208 So.2d 471 (Fla.App.1st 1968); Smith v. State, 194 So.2d 310 (Fla.App.1st 1967).
Affirmed.
WIGGINTON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Wright, 224 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 1969)…Florida appellate courts. He fears that this conflict will create confusion as to the proper interpretation of Rule 6.16, subd. b. The cases cited for jurisdictional conflict are: Gilbert v. State, 148 Fla. 293, 4 So. 2d 330 (1941); Jones v. State, 212 So. 2d 804 (1st DCA 1968); Kimble v. State, 208 So. 2d 471 (1st DCA 1968); and Smith v. State, 194 So. 2d 310 (1st DCA 1967). Each of these cases holds that the sufficiency of the evidence cannot be asserted as a ground for reversal in an appellate court unles…
-
York v. State, 232 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)…and he cannot now for the first time raise the question of insufficiency of evidence. State v. Wright, 224 So. 2d 300, Supreme Court of Florida opinion filed June 18, 1969; Kimble v. State, Fla.App.1968, 208 So. 2d 471; Jones v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So. 2d 804; Gilbert v. State, 1941, 148 Fla. 293, 4 So. 2d 330. Next, defendant is aggrieved by a clause found in the court’s charge on self defense. F.S. Section 918.10(4), F.S.A., provides: “(4). No party may assign as error or grounds of appeal, the givi…
-
Wright v. State, 216 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…evidence in any respect is not open for review by us because no motion for new trial was filed or ruled upon. The cases of Kimble v. State, Fla.App.1968, 208 So. 2d 471; Smith v. State, Fla.App.1967, 194 So. 2d 310; and Jones v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So. 2d 804 are cited in support. These cases, all from the First District Court, do indeed hold that where a motion for new trial is not filed in the trial Court, the appellate Court “is precluded from considering the sufficiency of the evidence”, to use the l…
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
- Smith v. State, 194 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- Kimble v. State, 208 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)