RALPH STALVEY
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 a conviction for armed robbery, holding that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion for a separate trial or his motion for a new trial.
No, the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion for a separate trial. No, the trial court did not err in overruling the defendant's motion for a new trial.
“On writ of error we review judgment of conviction of what is commonly called "armed robbery."”
Establishes the nature of the case and the conviction being reviewed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRalph Stalvey was convicted of armed robbery. He appealed the judgment of conviction, raising two issues: whether the trial court erred in denying his…
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 Armed Robbery cases and more on FLexlaw
On writ of error we review judgment of conviction of what is commonly called “armed robbery.”
Plaintiff in error presents two questions for our consideration, as follows:
“First Question: Did the court err in denying the defendant Stalvey’s motion for a separate trial?
“Second Question: Did the court err in overruling the defendant Stalvey’s motion for a new trial?”
The first question must be answered in the negative on authority of the opinion and judgment in' the case of Sawyer v. State, 100 Fla., part 2, page 1603, 132 Sou. 188.
The second question must also be answered in the negative. See Commercial Credit Co. v. Willis, 126 Fla. 444, 171 Sou. 304; Strickland, et al., v. Coe, 135 Fla. 693, 185 Sou. 616; 308 East 78th St. Corporation v. Favorite, 111 Fla. 234, 149 Sou. 625; Southern States Power Co. v. Pittman, 122 Fla. 758, 165 Sou. 893; Holstun, et al., v. Embry, 124 Fla. 554, 169 Sou. 400.
The judgment is affirmed.
So ordered.
Affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Thomas, J., concur.
Whitfield, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Brown and Chapman not participating as auuthorized 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
Authorities Cited
- Holstun & Son v. Embry, 124 Fla. 554 (Fla. 1936)
- Enslow Sawyer and Sam Thomas Smythe v. State, 100 Fla. 1603 (Fla. 1931)
- Commercial Credit Co., Inc. v. Willis, 126 Fla. 444 (Fla. 1936)
- State v. Dreka, 135 Fla. 463 (Fla. 1938)
- 308 E. 79 St. Corp. v. Favorite, 111 Fla. 234 (Fla. 1933)
- Sholtz v. State, 122 Fla. 758 (Fla. 1936)
- Strickland v. Coe, 135 Fla. 693 (Fla. 1938)