LEE CHARLES RUSHING, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; JOHN HENRY HIGHTOWER, ALIAS JOHN HENRY STUBBS, APPELLANT, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; WILLIAM GRIFFIN, JR., 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.
This case involves three defendants convicted of breaking and entering and grand larceny who appealed, arguing that their joint representation by a single appointed attorney was grounds for reversal. The appellate court affirmed their convictions, finding no demonstrated prejudice from the joint representation and sufficient evidence for the grand larceny charge.
No, the joint representation alone does not require reversal if no prejudice is demonstrated. Yes, the record supports the state's burden of showing the value of the stolen property was $100 or more.
“They urge that reversal is required because they were jointly represented by a single appointed attorney.”
States the primary argument raised by the appellants 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 intelligenceWilliam Griffin, Jr., John Henry Hightower, and Lee Charles Rushing were convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny and gr…
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 Prejudice From Joint Representation cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendants William Griffin, Jr., John Henry Hightower and Lee Charles Rushing were each convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny and grand larceny. They urge that reversal is required because they were jointly represented by a single appointed attorney.
At trial defendants did not object to joint representation, and their appellate presentation has failed to demon*515strate any resulting prejudice. Since joint representation alone does not provide ground for reversal, defendants’ contention must fail. State v. Youngblood, Fla., 217 So.2d 98, opinion filed December 17, 1968, and Belton v. State, Fla., 217 So.2d 97, opinion filed December 17, 1968.
Defendants’ remaining allegation, that the state did not meet its burden of showing the value of the stolen property to be $100.00 or more at the time of the theft, is not supported by the record. Accordingly, the judgments and sentences appealed from are
Affirmed.
WALDEN, C. J., and CROSS and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Belton v. State, 217 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1968)
- State v. Youngblood, 217 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 1968)