CHARLES R. ROGERS, 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 court held that the statute under which the defendant was charged is constitutional, and the information sufficiently stated a felony.
Appellant pleaded guilty to breaking and entering a business building with intent to commit a misdemeanor and was sentenced. He then filed a motion to…
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 Sufficiency Of Information cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant Charles R. Rogers appeals an order denying a motion for post-conviction relief brought under CrPR 1.850, 33 F.S. A.
Rogers was informed against in the Criminal Court of Record for Hills-borough County for the offense of breaking and entering a business building with intent to commit a misdemeanor. Upon plea of guilty he was sentenced to a term in the State Prison. Thereafter he filed a motion to vacate the judgment and sentence. The trial court denied the motion and he appeals to this Court from the order of denial. The ground of the motion was that the statute under which Rogers was charged, F.S. § 810.05, F.S.A., “is unconstitutional and of no legal foundation”.
Rogers obviously relies upon the dissenting opinion of Judge McCain of the 4th District Court in the case of Brown *119v. State, Fla.App., 232 So.2d 55. But the Supreme Court of Florida, upon further review of the same case, Brown v. State, 237 So.2d 129, 1970, specifically overruled Judge McCain’s dissenting opinion, holding that an indictment or information charging a crime in essentially the same language as used in the instant case sufficiently stated a felony.
This disposes of the only question relied upon here, and the order appealed from is therefore—
Affirmed.
HOBSON, C. J., and MANN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kinder v. State, 240 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)…on, Brown v. State, Fla.1970, 237 So. 2d 129. This 2nd District Court has had occasion to apply the Supreme Court’s ruling in cases brought to this Court on appeal since the high Court’s opinion in Brown was released. See Rogers v. State, Fla.App., 239 So. 2d 118, opinion filed September 11, 1970, not yet published; also Woods v. State, 239 So. 2d 853, this day decided by this Court. The order appealed from is thereupon'— Affirmed. HOBSON, C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.…
-
Woods v. State, 239 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)…that an information charging an offense essentially as charged in the instant case states a felony. We have followed this ruling in similar cases brought to this Court on appeal since the high Court’s holding in Brown. See Rogers v. State, Fla.App., 239 So. 2d 118, opinion filed September 11, 1970. The trial Court’s order denying post-conviction relief in the instant case was eminently correct and the appeal is therefore Affirmed. LILES, A. C. J., and MANN, J., concur.…
-
Duncan v. State, 240 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)…58. But unfortunately for appellant Eddie Duncan, Jr., the effort must again prove fruitless, upon authority of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Brown v. State, Fla.1970, 237 So. 2d 129. See also this 2nd District Court’s opinions in Rogers v. State, 239 So. 2d 118; Woods v. State, 239 So. 2d 853; and Kinder v. State, 240 So. 2d 162. The lower Court’s order in the instant case, denying Duncan’s post-conviction motion for relief, must be and is— Affirmed. HOBSON, C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Calloway Brown v. State, 232 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- Calloway Brown v. State, 237 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 1970)