JOHN WILLIAM O'BANION, EDDIE R. UIBEL AND T. C. JOHNSON
v.
STATE
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of three individuals for breaking and entering an unoccupied dwelling with intent to commit a misdemeanor. The court found no substantial merit in their arguments challenging the indictment, the State Attorney's authority, their immunity from prosecution due to grand jury testimony, or the sufficiency of the evidence.
The court held that all five issues raised by the defendants lacked substantial merit and did not warrant reversal of the conviction.
“We have examined all these questions and find them to be without substantial merit.”
This quote establishes the court's conclusion regarding the defendants' arguments.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohn William O'Banion, Eddie R. Uibel, and T. C. Johnson were convicted of breaking and entering an unoccupied dwelling with the intent to commit a mi…
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 Intent to Commit a Misdemeanor cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiffs in error were tried and convicted for breaking and entering an unoccupied dwelling house of R. H. Gore with the intent to commit a misdemeanor. They were each sentenced to a term in the State penitentiary and seek to be relieved of that judgment on writ of error.
Five questions are urged for -reversal. They challenge the sufficiency of the indictment, the authority of the State Attorney to sign it; they contend tha* they are immune *641from prosecution because they appeared and testified before the grand jury about the crime for which they were convicted and last, they challenge the sufficiency of the verdict including the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction.
We have examined all these questions and find them to be without substantial merit. We have written at length on them in other cases and do not see that an opinion here would serve any useful purpose. The judgment below is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Brown and-Chapman not participating as authorized by Section 4687 Compiled General Laws of 1927 and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Buchanan v. The State of Fla. ex rel. Dennis Mullene Moon, 166 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…e find and hold that his action in permitting the appeal in this instance to be prosecuted without the payment of the costs to be erroneous upon the authority of Jones v. Mayo, 1936, 126 Fla. 523, 171 So. 312, and Potter v. Mayo, 1939, 137 Fla. 593, 188 So. 784. Therefore in view of the aforesaid so much of the circuit judge’s order permitting appellate review of his decision without the payment of costs by the appellee be and the same is hereby vacated and reversed. We note from our records that the app…