ELMER COURTNEY DAVIS, 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 conviction for robbery, finding sufficient evidence presented at trial to support the guilty verdict. The appellant's sole argument on appeal was the insufficiency of the evidence.
Yes, the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for robbery.
“The only point preserved for review on this appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction.”
Identifies the sole legal issue raised 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 intelligenceThe appellant was convicted of robbery following a non-jury trial. The evidence presented included direct testimony that the appellant struggled with …
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 Robbery cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks review of his conviction and sentence to ten years in the State penitentiary, entered by the trial court pursuant to a non-jury trial finding the appellant guilty of robbery in violation of § 813.011, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
The only point preserved for review on this appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction. Examining the record in light of this principle, we find direct testimony that the appellant struggled with the victim, removed his wallet from his back pocket, and was positively identified. Therefore, we do not disturb the judgment of conviction here under review, upon the authority of Sharon v. State, Fla.App.1963, 156 So.2d 677; Crum v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 24; Williams v. State, Fla.App.1966, 187 So.2d 913.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dawson v. State, 224 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)…press and yet the appellant abandoned these motions. The lower court correctly concluded that the record conclusively showed that the guilty pleas were entered voluntarily. Young v. State, Fla.App.1968, 216 So. 2d 497; Moore v. State, Fla.App.1968, 216 So. 2d 766; and Haywood v. State, Fla.App.1969, 218 So. 2d 242. Oral argument is dispensed with as serving no useful purpose pursuant to Rule 3.10(e) F.A.R., 32 F.S.A. Affirmed. MANN and McNULTY, JJ., concur.…
-
Frizzell v. State, 220 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed on authority of Haywood v. State (Fla.App.2d 1969), 218 So. 2d 242; Moore v. State (Fla.App.2d 1968), 216 So. 2d 766; and Young v. State (Fla.App.2d 1968), 216 So. 2d 497. HOBSON, A. C. J., and PIERCE and McNULTY, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Crum v. State, 172 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Sharon v. State, 156 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Morena Williams v. State, 187 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)