JOHN L. COBBS, 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.
Cobbs appeals the denial of his post-conviction relief motion under Rule 1.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, challenging his conviction for breaking and entering with intent to commit felony grand larceny and petit larceny. The court affirmed the trial court's denial, holding that insufficiency of evidence is not a proper ground for Rule 1.850 relief absent a timely motion for new trial.
The court held that insufficiency of evidence is not an acceptable ground for relief under Rule 1.850 where no timely motion for new trial was made, as such claims are reviewable on direct appeal. The sentence imposed was authorized for the offense of conviction. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion.
[1] The issue of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a criminal conviction is not reviewable on direct appeal unless first presented to the trial court by an appropria…
[2] Claims of inadequate representation by counsel cannot properly be raised for the first time on direct appeal because such claims have not been previously ruled upon by th…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The contention of insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the judgment must be rejected on his motion under Rule 1.850 CrPR. Aside from the impediment against raising that question on review, where, as here, it appears that no timely motion for new trial was made, the contention of insufficiency of evidence to support the judgment, being a matter reviewable on appeal, is not an acceptable ground for relief under Rule 1.850.”
Establishes the core holding that insufficiency of evidence cannot support Rule 1.850 post-conviction relief absent a timely motion for new trial
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCobbs and two others were charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny and petit larceny. On December 14, 1967, he was found…
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 Jurisdiction To Impose Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from an order of the Criminal Court of record of Dade County denying a motion of the defendant, filed under Rule 1.850 CrPR, 33 F.S.A., for relief from a judgment of conviction and the sentence being served thereon.
The appellant, with two others, was charged by information with breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, to-wit: grand larceny, and with petit larceny. On December 14, 1967, he was found and adjudged guilty. The statement of the case in appellant’s brief contained the following:
“The Court sentenced the Defendant to ten (10) years in the state prison for breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony and withheld sentencing as to petit larceny.
“Post-Conviction Relief Petitions, Rule 1.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, were filed essentially alleging insufficiency of evidence to sustain convictions, lack of jurisdiction to impose sentence, excessiveness of sentence, and inadequacy of defense by Court-appointed attorney.”
We find no error in the ruling of the trial court denying the motion. The sentence imposed was one which was authorized for the offense of which the appellant-defendant was found and adjudged guilty. The appellant’s contention of insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the judgment must be rejected on his motion under Rule 1.850 CrPR. Aside from the impediment against raising that question on review, where, as here, it appears that no timely motion for new trial was made, the contention of insufficiency of evidence to support the judgment, being a matter reviewable on appeal, is not an acceptable ground for relief under Rule 1.850. See Harper v. State, Fla.App.1964, 168 So.2d 325; Crusoe v. State, Fla.App.1966, 183 So.2d 600; Stewart v. State, Fla.App.1966, 184 So.2d 489. The contention as to inadequacy of counsel was not urged here.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. State, 312 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…e any points that he chose in support of his appeal, and the appellant having failed to respond thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Cobbs v. State, Fla.App.1970, 241 So. 2d 178; Ramos v. State, Fla.App. 1971, 249 So. 2d 728; Glenn v. State, Fla. App. 1972, 271 So. 2d 23. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted and the order or judgment is hereby affirmed.…
-
Cooper v. State, 296 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)….1966, 191 So. 2d 292; Swindle v. State, Fla.App.1967, 202 So. 2d 132; McKenzie v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 202 So. 2d 578; Suarez v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 220 So. 2d 442; Albright v. State, Fla.App. 1970, 239 So. 2d 641; Cobbs v. State, Fla.App. 1970, 241 So. 2d 178; Zide v. State, Fla.App.1971, 253 So. 2d 917; Cooper v. State, Fla.App.1972, 261 So. 2d 859.…
Authorities Cited
- Crusoe v. State, 183 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Harper v. State, 168 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- Stewart v. State, 184 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)