JOHN HENRY ALLEN, 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 court held that the defendant's contentions on appeal were without merit and that there was substantial competent evidence to support the jury's verdict.
The defendant was convicted of robbery based on a jury verdict. He appealed, raising issues concerning the admissibility of identification testimony, …
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 Admissibility Of Identification Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction and sentence based upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of the offense of robbery.
On appeal the defendant questions: (1) the admissibility of testimony by the victim who knew the defendant and made an in court identification of him where there had also been a police station lineup identification absent defense counsel; (2) the admissibility of testimony by an accomplice confessing to and implicating the defendant in both the alleged robbery and a subsequent one closely following the one informed against; (3) the admission into evidence of certain exhibits, i. e., photographs, pistols, blackjacks and money; and (4) the sufficiency of the evidence.
We have carefully considered the defendant’s contentions in light of the briefs, arguments of counsel and the record on appeal and find them to be without merit. Our consideration reflects there was substantial competent evidence in the record to support the jury’s verdict, and this court will not substitute its judgment for that of the jury or retry the case on the facts. United States v. Wade, 1967, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149; Shepard v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 213 So.2d 11; Simmons v. United States, 1968, 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967, 20 L.Ed.2d 1247; Anderson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 215 So.2d 618; Williams v. State, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d *445654; State v. Wadsworth, Fla.1968, 210 So.2d 4; Hawkins v. State, Fla.1967, 199 So.2d 276; Winkfield v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 209 So.2d 468; Blackburn v. State, Fla.App.1968, 208 So.2d 625.
See also Crum v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 24, wherein it was stated that “all inferences to be drawn from the evidence are to be in favor of the verdict or judgment of guilt” on an appeal from such verdict or judgment.
No reversible error having been made to appear, the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
WALDEN, C. J., and TROWBRIDGE, C. PFEIFFER, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Solloa v. State, 227 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…9. Moreover, from the brief reference to the matter of the line-up as contained in the record, there is no clear showing whether in fact counsel for the defendant in question was or was not present on that occasion. See Allen v. State, Fla.App.1968, 219 So. 2d 444. The appellant’s contention that he was inadequately represented by his employed attorney at the trial is without merit. The mishandling he claimed was with regard to matters falling within the judgment or trial strategy of counsel. See Williams v.…
-
Hearns v. State, 262 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)…fact for the witness to make an independent identification, predicated on the crime rather than the illegal lineup or infield identification procedure, as was the case in Robinson v. State, Fla.App.1970, 237 So. 2d 268; Allen v. State, Fla.App.1969, 219 So. 2d 444; Anderson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 215 So. 2d 618, and Shepard v. State, Fla.App.1968, 213 So. 2d 11. We reverse and remand for a new trial. Reversed and remanded. WALDEN and OWEN, JJ., and RICHARDSON, GEORGE, Jr., Associate Judge, concur.…
-
Soto v. State, 232 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…witnesses. In the circumstances disclosed the in-court identification testimony was not tainted by the witnesses’ prior out of court identification of the defendant. See Anderson v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 215 So. 2d 618; Allen v. State, Fla.App.1969, 219 So. 2d 444. Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited (12 total)
- United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1967)
- Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (U.S. 1968)
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Crum v. State, 172 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- State v. Wadsworth, 210 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1968)
- Anderson v. State, 215 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)
- Blackburn v. State, 208 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Hawkins v. State, 199 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 1967)
- Readus Roscoe Shepard v. State, 213 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Reita Bamforth v. Evans, 199 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 1967)