ARTHUR JOHNSON, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed conviction for wilful arson where post-conviction motion challenging sufficiency of evidence and trial counsel tactics presented no reversible error.
A post-conviction motion under CrPR 1.850 alleging insufficiency of evidence and trial counsel complaints presents no reversible error when the trial record supports the jury verdict.
Arthur Johnson was charged with wilful arson of an unoccupied dwelling house in Pinellas County. He pleaded not guilty and was tried by jury on Januar…
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 Reversible Error cases and more on FLexlaw
On November 28, 1969, appellant Arthur Johnson was informed against in the Pinellas County Circuit Court for the offense of wilful arson of an unoccupied dwelling house. He pleaded not guilty on December 5, 1969, and on January 7, 1970 was tried by a jury, resulting in a verdict of guilty as charged. Motion for new trial being denied, he was adjudged guilty of said offense on February 20, 1970, and on the same date was sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment in the State Prison.
On May 5, 1970 Johnson filed in the trial Court his motion to vacate and set aside the judgment and sentence aforesaid under CrPR 1.850, 33 F.S.A., which motion the trial Judge denied without evidentiary hearing. We agree and affirm.
*334The motion under the post-conviction Rule alleged only matters which went to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the jury’s verdict and also complaints of certain trial incidents and the tactics of his defense trial counsel, in none of which we find substantial merit.
Having thoroughly examined the transcript of record before us, and having considered the briefs filed herein, we are unable to find reversible error. The order appealed is therefore—
Affirmed.
HOBSON and MANN, JJ., concur.