WILLIE JACKSON AND ARTHUR LEE MOORE, APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELFEE
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.
Willie Jackson and Arthur Lee Moore appealed their armed robbery convictions and five-year sentences. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed their convictions, rejecting their arguments that accomplice testimony was unreliable and that dual representation by one attorney constituted reversible error.
The court held that (1) an accused may be convicted on uncorroborated accomplice testimony, and here the evidence was corroborated by the victim's wallet being found in the appellants' car, and (2) absent any showing of prejudice or objection at trial, dual representation does not constitute reversible error.
“an accused may be convicted upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice”
Establishes the legal principle that uncorroborated accomplice testimony is sufficient for conviction, directly addressing the appellants' first argument
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJackson and Moore held up a service station in Duval County, Florida, using a gun. The station attendant, Harold Johnson, was announced upon with 'Thi…
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 Dual Representation cases and more on FLexlaw
Willie Jackson and Arthur Lee Moore held up a service station at the corner of Stockton and Gilmore in Duval County, Florida.
A gun was used. The station attendant, Mr.' Harold Johnson, first learned he was being robbed when one of the appellants announced, "This is it. This is a hold-up.” Simultaneous with the announcement of the event, the victim felt a gun jammed in his back. He turned around and grabbed the gun. The appellant, Arthur Lee Moore, said, “If you don’t turn the gun aloose, I’m going to fire it.” A struggle ensued. Mr. Johnson was jumped on by two or three more assailants, but he fought back. By then, his money changer containing some ten dollars in change and his wallet containing some forty-three dollars both had been taken from him. In the melee which ensued, a shot was fired at Mr. Johnson which went through his pants leg, barely missing him. Mr. Johnson, of course, could have been killed. It was only luck, *223coupled with his assailant’s poor marksmanship, which spared him.
There was ample evidence that the appellants committed the armed robbery for which they were each sentenced to only five years imprisonment.
On this appeal, appellants advance two points on which they rely for reversal. Neither has any merit. The first is a contention that the evidence by which appellants were implicated as being the perpetrators of the robbery w.as given by alleged accomplices in exchange for lenient treatment and thus was unreliable. Courts of this State have rejected similar assaults upon the testimony of an alleged accomplice. In Peterson v. State, 95 Fla. 925, 117 So. 227, our Supreme Court stated that an .accused may be convicted upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. This principle of law has only recently been affirmed in Dupree v. State, 195 So.2d 1 (Fla.App.2d 1967). In the case at bar, the trial court was confronted with more than the uncorroborated testimony of an alleged accomplice. Appellants’ .argument on this point avoids any discussion of the fact that the victim’s wallet was found in the car in which appellants were apprehended shortly after the crime. This latter circumstance, it seems to us, tends to corroborate the testimony of the witnesses.
The other question raised by appellant is the contention that the trial court erred in permitting these two appellants to be represented by a single defense attorney. However, no suggestion is made by appellants that either of them were prejudiced by such dual representation. Moreover, the record fails to indicate that any objection was made in the trial court to such dual representation. In absence of such a showing, the disposition of this question as being without merit is controlled by the Supreme Court’s decision in Belton v. State, 217 So.2d 97, and State v. Youngblood, 217 So.2d 98.
Accordingly, the judgments appealed by these two appellants are affirmed.
WIGGINTON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Grady Eugene Jenkins v. State, 228 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…“In the instant case there was neither a request for separate counsel nor a showing or prejudice. Consequently, reversible error is not revealed by the record.” See also State v. Youngblood, Fla.1968, 217 So. 2d 98; Jackson v. State, Fla.App.1969, 221 So. 2d 222. The appellant has raised two other points on appeal. His second point is that the method of pretrial identification was improper and prejudicial. This is in reference to the fact that one victim of the robbery was shown three photographs of potent…
-
Jennings v. State, 228 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…y hold, as we do in the appeal taken by this appellant’s co-defendant, that no error was committed. See Jenkins v. State, supra; Belton v. State, Fla. 1968, 217 So. 2d 97; State v. Youngblood, Fla.1968, 217 So. 2d 98; Jackson v. State, Fla.App.1969, 221 So. 2d 222. As his second point on appeal, the appellant contends that the court erred in denying defense counsel’s motion for continuance. Since such motion is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court, we have searched the record and hav…
Authorities Cited
- Belton v. State, 217 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1968)
- State v. Youngblood, 217 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 1968)
- Peterson v. State, 95 Fla. 925 (Fla. 1928)
- Dupree v. State, 195 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)