WILLIE CLEVELAND PHILLIPS, 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 evidence was sufficient to support the jury's guilty verdict for robbery.
Appellant was convicted of robbery. The victim identified him, though with some inconsistencies regarding minor physical characteristics. The arrestin…
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 Robbery cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks review of a judgment of conviction and sentence based upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of the offense of robbery. The sole point on appeal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment appealed.
Appellant’s primary contention is premised upon the fact that the identifying victim of the robbery testified on cross-examination that he did not recall seeing a scar on appellant’s face, a gap in his front teeth, or that he wore a mustache at the time the robbery was committed, whereas all three physical characteristics were in fact present at that time. The victim otherwise identified appellant without reservation as being one of the three men who committed the robbery on the occasion in question. In addition to the testimony of the victim, the arresting officer who apprehended appellant in hot pursuit as he fled from the scene of the crime also identified him as one of the three men who participated in the robbery, which testimony was corroborated by that of a disinterested passerby who stopped and assisted the arresting officer in taking appellant into custody and holding him until other assistants arrived.
It is our view that the evidence amply sustains the guilty verdict rendered by the jury whose sole province it was to pass upon the weight of the testimony and the credibility of the witnesses testifying at the trial. The judgment appealed is accordingly affirmed.
WIGGINTON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Parker v. State, 295 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)…ed unless it is clearly demonstrated to be unsupported by competent and substantial evidence (Ellison v. State, [*313] Fla.App. (1st) 1971, 254 So. 2d 837; Thomas v. State, Fla.App. (1st) 1969, 223 So. 2d 118; Phillips v. State, Fla.App. (1st) 1969, 223 So. 2d 60) In a jury trial, whether it he civil or criminal, the jury is the ultimate fact finder and, when the evidence is conflicting, if there is substantial credible evidence in the record to sustain the jury’s verdict it may not be disturbed on appeal.…
-
McCALL v. State, 226 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)…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 judgment of the lower court is affirmed. See Phillips v. State, 223 So. 2d 60 (Fla.App.1969). JOHNSON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ., concur.…
-
Ellison v. State, 254 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)…uliarly within the province of the jury, this Court will not disturb the verdict unless the same is clearly demonstrated to be unsupported by competent and substantial evidence. Thomas v. State, 223 So. 2d 118 (Fla.App.1st, 1969); Phillips v. State, 223 So. 2d 60 (Fla.App.1st, 1969). The appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment appealed herein is affirmed. SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON, J., concur.…