CHARLIE J. ROBINSON, 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 appellate court affirmed a conviction for entering a store building with intent to commit a misdemeanor, rejecting the appellant's argument that his identity was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The court emphasized its role is not to re-weigh evidence but to determine if sufficient competent substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding.
Yes, the appellate court held that the trial court's finding of identity and guilt was supported by sufficient, competent, and substantial evidence.
“This court does not sit as a second trier of facts.”
Establishes the appellate court's limited role in reviewing factual determinations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCharlie J. Robinson was convicted of entering a store building without breaking, with the intent to commit petit larceny. He was sentenced to one year…
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 Appellate Review Of Factual Findings cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Charlie J. Robinson, was convicted of the offense of entering without breaking a store building with intent to commit a misdemeanor, to-wit: petit lar-eny. He was sentenced to one year in the Division of Corrections of the State of Florida.
It is appellant’s contention that the trial court erred in finding him guilty because the evidence did not establish his identity beyond a reasonable doubt.
We must reject appellant’s contention. This court does not sit as a second trier of facts. Williams v. Smelt, Fla.1955, 83 So.2d 1. The issue of identity was one of fact to be determined by the trial judge, before whom the case was tried without a jury. It is our function to determine whether the record contains sufficient competent substantial evidence which, if believed, would support the verdict. We *440have concluded that the trial court’s finding as to the defendant’s identity and guilt are supported by sufficient, competent and substantial evidence. Gibson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 208 So.2d 128.
No reversible error appearing, the judgment and sentence appealed are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. Smelt, 83 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1955)
- Gibson v. State, 208 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)