GREGORY W. MINCEY, 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 appeal was procedurally barred due to the lack of a motion for a new trial, and that reviewing a pre-sentence report before sentencing was not error.
Appellant was convicted of larceny of an automobile, his probation was revoked, and he was sentenced. He appealed, arguing insufficient evidence and e…
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 Larceny Of An Automobile cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was informed against for the crime of larceny of an automobile. Following the receiving of evidence, he was adjudicated guilty and, prior to sentencing, the trial judge noted the prior record of the appellant and the fact that he was on probation for two previous criminal incidents. Thereafter, he adjudicated the appellant guilty of larceny of the automobile as charged, revoked probation, and sentenced him within the limits of the applicable statutes.
This appeal followed. Two points were presented for reversal: first, that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the charge of larceny of an auto vehicle and, second, that the trial judge erred in reviewing the appellant’s previous record prior to sentencing, reflecting his brushes with the law.
The State has filed a motion to quash, contending that the first point is not valid in that no motion for a new trial was made, citing State v. Owens, Fla.1970, 233 So.2d 389, and second, that there was no error committed by the trial judge in examining the pre-sentence report prior to sentencing, citing Cross v. State, 96 Fla. 768, 119 So. 380.
We find merit in the motion to quash but have, in an abundance of caution, reviewed the entire record on appeal. And, following such, dispense with oral argument pursuant to the provision of Rule 3.10, subd. e, Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A., and affirm the conviction and sentence here under review upon the authority of State v. Owens, supra, and County of Dade v. Baird, Fla.App.1968, 211 So.2d 609.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miller v. Nolte, 453 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 1984)…of Dade, 149 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 155 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 1963); Harvey W. Seeds Post No. 29 v. Dade County, 230 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 238 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 1970); Chaves Construction Co. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 256 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Blake v. R.M.S. Holding Corp., 341 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). I find that the statute is a jurisdictional statute of non-claim and that has been the clear rule of law in this state for over forty years. Consistency and stare…
-
COE v. ITT Cmty. Dev. Corp., 362 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1978)…ty of Dade, 149 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 155 So. 2d 549 (Fla.1963); Harvey W. Seeds Post No. 29 v. Dade County, 230 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 238 So. 2d 420 (Fla.1970); Chaves Construction Co. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 256 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Blake v. R. M. S. Holding Corp., 341 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Neither the district court below nor respondents here have suggested any invalidity or defect in the reasoning which prompted an early characterization of this…
-
Dep't OF Revenue v. M.E. Rudd and Jean C. Rudd, 545 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…d that the time limit requirement would not bar a tardy challenge claiming an assessment to be void due to lack of legal basis. Overstreet v. Ty-Tan, Inc., 48 So. 2d 158 (Fla.1950); Chaves Construction Co. & Subsidiaries v. Metropolitan Dade County, 256 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). Distinctions between void and voidable levies were put at rest when the legislature amended chapter 194, Florida Statutes, in 1983 and section 72.011 in 1984 and 1985 to make the time limit and prepayment requirements jurisdictio…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cross v. State, 96 Fla. 768 (Fla. 1928)
- State v. Owens, 233 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 1970)
- Cnty. OF Dade v. Baird, 211 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)