ROBERT MILLER, A/K/A WILLIE HANSFORD, 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 court held that testimony about a riot in progress was relevant and admissible, and that any alleged inconsistency between the intent to commit grand larceny and the consummation of petit larceny did not compel reversal.
The defendant was found guilty of entering a building without breaking with intent to commit grand larceny and of petit larceny. He appealed, claiming…
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 Petit Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant below appeals from his adjudication and sentence in the trial court. He was found guilty, after a non-jury trial, of entering a building without breaking, with the intent to commit grand larceny and of petit larceny.
He claims reversible error in that testimony was introduced, over his objection, that a riot was in progress at the time of the incident for which he was arrested. The defendant was not charged with being a rioter.
Under the factual circumstances of this case, the testimony that a riot was in progress was relevant and admissible. See Feldman v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 21; Green v. State, Fla.App.1966, 190 So.2d 42.
We have examined the defendant’s second point for reversal and find that there was substantial, competent evidence in the record to sustain the judgment of conviction. Furthermore, while we do not necessarily find any inconsistency between an adjudication of entering with the intent to commit grand larceny and an adjudication finding that only petty larceny was consummated, any such inconsistency would not compel reversal. Harrell v. State, Fla.App.1967, 194 So.2d 306; Goodwin v. State, 157 Fla. 751, 26 So.2d 898 (1946); and State v. Trafficante, Fla.App.1961, 136 So.2d 264.
For the aforesaid reasons the judgments appealed be and the same are hereby affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rumph v. State, 248 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)…eover, the latter assumption would be out of place here because the evidence did not show the personal property on the premises, or its value.” On the other hand, the Third District Court of Appeal reached an opposite conclusion in Miller v. State, 220 So. 2d 652 (Fla.App.1969), saying: “We have examined the defendant’s second point for reversal and find that there was substantial, competent evidence in the record to sustain the judgment of conviction. Furthermore, while we do not necessarily find any incon…
-
Guerrero v. State, 289 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1974)…100 or more. “We reject as unsound the contention of the appellant that the evidence was insufficient to sustain conviction on the charge of breaking and entering the dwelling with intent to commit grand larceny. See Miller v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 220 So. 2d 652. “The appellant cited White v. State, Fla.App.1973, 274 So. 2d 6, recently decided by the fourth district. In that case a defendant faced similar charges, and was similarly convicted. In reversing, the court regarded the evidence to be insufficient…
-
Harper v. State, 236 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)…PER CURIAM. The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the order of the lower court is affirmed. See Miller v. State, 220 So. 2d 652 (Fla.App.1969). JOHNSON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K. and RAWLS, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Goodwin v. State, 157 Fla. 751 (Fla. 1946)
- Green v. State, 190 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- State v. Trafficante, 136 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Feldman v. State, 212 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Harrell v. State, 194 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)