ANTHONY STANLEY, 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 grand larceny, finding sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding of guilt despite the appellant's claims of insufficient proof of ownership and taking.
Yes, the appellate court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for grand larceny.
“Appellant urges reversal on the ground of insufficiency of evidence to support his conviction.”
States the appellant's primary argument on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAnthony Stanley was charged with grand larceny, pleaded not guilty, and waived a jury trial. The trial judge found him guilty and sentenced him to thr…
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 Proof Of Ownership cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, Anthony Stanley, was charged by information with the offense of grand larceny. He pleaded not guilty and waived jury trial. The trial judge found him guilty and imposed a sentence upon him of three years in the state penitentiary.
Appellant urges reversal on the ground of insufficiency of evidence to support his conviction. He specifically complains that the state failed to establish a prima facie case of grand larceny because there was insufficient proof of ownership of the property. It is further contended that the state failed to establish a prima facie case of grand larceny because there is no evidence in the record which shows that the defendant took the property or acted in concert with the person who took the property.
We have carefully examined the record, considered the briefs and arguments of counsel and have concluded that appellant’s contentions are without substantial merit. Williams v. Smelt, Fla.1955, 83 So.2d 1; Gibson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 208 So.2d 128; Crum v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 24.
Affirmed.
(dissenting).
It is my view that the judgment and sentence should be reversed and the defendant discharged upon appellant’s third point which is: “May a person be convicted of grand larceny when there is no evidence that the defendant took the property in question and no evidence that he acted in concert with the person who took the property?” See Borrego v. State, Fla.1952, 62 So.2d 43.
PEARSON, Judge
(dissenting).
It is my view that the judgment and sentence should be reversed and the defendant discharged upon appellant’s third point which is: “May a person be convicted of grand larceny when there is no evidence that the defendant took the property in question and no evidence that he acted in concert with the person who took the property?” See Borrego v. State, Fla.1952, 62 So. 2d 43.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Crum v. State, 172 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Borrego v. State, 62 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1952)
- Williams v. Smelt, 83 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1955)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Mattie Lee Atkins v. Anderson, 62 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1952)
- Gibson v. State, 208 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)