EDWARD ROMERO, 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 court affirmed the judgment and sentence, finding the record insufficient to review the first point and the second point unpreserved.
Appellant Edward Romero appealed a judgment and sentence from the Court of Record for Brevard County. He raised two points on appeal concerning parent…
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.
This is an appeal by Edward Romero from a judgment and sentence of the Court of Record for Brevard County, Florida, rendered 17 December 1970. We affirm.
The first point on appeal as stated by the appellant is as follows:
“Whether the sentence and judgment of the court is void because the court tried the minor defendant without notifying his parents pursuant to F.S. 932.38 [F. S.A.].”
The record before this court is totally insufficient to permit a review by this court of the asserted noncompliance with F.S. 1969, section 932.38, F.S.A. (now F.S.1970, section 925.07, F.S.A.). For example, the record before us fails to reveal the appellant’s age or marital status at the time of trial or whether his parent or parents had actual notice of the charge a reasonable time prior to the trial. Because the merits of the issue raised under Point I must rest on factual matters outside the record, our affirmance of the judgment and sentence appealed from shall be without prejudice to the right of the appellant to raise the issue by a motion under Rule 1.850, CrPR, 33 F.S.A.
The second point on appeal as stated in the appellant’s brief is:
“Whether there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of guilt and establish a prima facie case or should a judgment of acquittal have been granted.”
This point relates to the sufficiency of the evidence. The point has not been properly preserved for appellate review because a timely motion for new trial was not made. *138See Rule 1.590(a), CrPR. Accordingly, with respect to Point II we are required by the presumption of correctness which favors proceedings in the trial court to hold that Point II lacks merit. See State v. Owens, Fla.1970, 233 So.2d 389; State v. Wright, Fla.1969, 224 So.2d 300; and, State v. Contreras, Fla.1969, 227 So.2d 306.
For the foregoing reasons and subject to the foregoing limitation, the judgment and sentence appealed are affirmed.
REED, C. J., and CROSS and OWEN, JJ-, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mitchell v. State, 309 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)…pellate court may review only proceedings after the order of probation and that any relief on this issue is properly the subject for post-conviction relief under Criminal Procedure Rule 3.-850. Our sister court in Romero v. State, Fla.App.4th 1971, 251 So. 2d 137, held that under circumstances such as these where the record is insufficient to permit a review of the alleged noncompliance with Florida Statute § 925.07, the proper remedy would be under Criminal Procedure Rule 3.850. The other points on appeal…
-
Bryant v. State, 268 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…la.1959, 84 So. 2d 317; Simpson v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 164 So. 2d 224; Falagon v. State, Fla.App.1966, 186 So. 2d 804; Simmons v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 212 So. 2d 658; Peterson v. State, Fla.App.1970, 237 So. 2d 223; Romero v. State, Fla.App.1971, 251 So. 2d 137; State v. Silva, Fla. 1972, 259 So. 2d 153.…
-
Romero v. State, 276 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…OWEN, Judge. Appellant’s conviction of sale of marijuana was affirmed by this court, Romero v. State, Fla.App.1971, 251 So. 2d 137, but without prejudice to appellant’s right to collaterally attack the judgment and sentence for the State’s alleged non-compliance with, F.S., Section 925.07, F.S.A. Subsequently, appellant filed in the trial court a motion under Rule 3.850, RCrP,…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Wright, 224 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 1969)
- State v. Owens, 233 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 1970)
- In re Petition to Suspend James M. Edwards, 227 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 1969)