JOEL BRYANT SMITH, 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 larceny of an automobile, holding that the evidence, excluding the defendant's confession, was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
Yes, the evidence presented by the state, independent of the confession, established a prima facie case of larceny and proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the crime.
“except for his confession, there is insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction.”
The appellant's main argument 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 larceny of an automobile and sentenced to two years in prison. He appealed, arguing that without his confession, there …
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 Larceny Of An Automobile cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was tried by the court, convicted of larceny of an automobile, and sentenced to two years in prison.
Smith contends that except for his confession, there is insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction. He relies on Hodges v. State, Fla.1965, 176 So.2d 91, in which the Supreme Court of Florida held that a larceny conviction could not be sustained *338if “the fact that the crime of larceny had occurred could not be established by the other evidence introduced without the aid of the admission [of the defendant-appellant].” But the foregoing rule is of no avail to the appellant because the state’s evidence other than the confession established a prima facie case of larceny against the appellant and also proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed larceny. Therefore, the judgment of conviction must be affirmed. See Hodges v. State, above. Cf. Ortiz v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 57.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hodges v. State, 176 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 1965)
- Ortiz v. State, 212 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)