CALVIN THOMAS, 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 appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient to identify the appellant as the perpetrator.
The appellant was convicted of robbery based on a jury verdict. The victim testified with certainty that the appellant was the perpetrator, and this i…
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 Presumption Of Correctness Of Trial Court Judgment 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 only question preserved on appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence which purports to identify appellant as the perpetrator of the crime with which he was charged.
In our review of the issue presented for decision, we have given due consideration to the applicable principle *119that a judgment of the trial court reaches the appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness. The record reveals that the victim of the robbery testified with certainty and without qualification that appellant was the person who robbed and beat him on the occasion testified about. The victim’s remaining testimony was thoroughly corroborated by other evidence in such a conclusive manner as to make the identification of appellant entirely credible. It is not the province of this court to substitute its judgment for that of the trier of the facts. The jury’s findings will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing that the verdict is unsupported by competent and substantial evidence.1 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
-
Williams v. State, 254 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…nd thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Crum v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 24; Stewart v. State, Fla.App.1969, 221 So. 2d 155; Thomas v. State, Fla.App.1969, 223 So. 2d 118; Tafero v. State, Fla.App.1969, 223 So. 2d 564. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted and the order or judgment is hereby affirmed.…
-
Parker v. State, 295 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)…ave often stated that a jury verdict will not be disturbed 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…
-
Ellison v. State, 254 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)…nd the credibility to be accorded the witnesses lie peculiarly 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.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Crum v. State, 172 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Prentiss T. Parrish v. State, 97 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 1st DCA 1957)