WALTER MILLER, 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.
Walter Miller appeals his non-jury conviction for robbery and five-year sentence. The appellate court rejected both his challenge to the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and his claim that the trial judge was prejudiced by his juvenile record when imposing sentence.
The circumstantial evidence was sufficient for conviction as it was consistent with guilt, inconsistent with innocence, and excluded every reasonable hypothesis except guilt. The trial judge did not consider or use the juvenile record when sentencing, so the defendant's claim of prejudice and unlawful sentence was without merit.
[1] A person may be convicted solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence.
[2] Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if it is consistent with guilt, inconsistent with innocence, and excludes every reasonable hypothesis except guilt.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A person charged with a crime may be convicted solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence.”
Establishes the legal principle that circumstantial evidence alone can support a criminal conviction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe complaining witness reported being rushed by a black man approximately 5'10" tall wearing a white short-sleeve shirt who snatched her purse. A sec…
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 Sufficiency Of Circumstantial Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant, Walter Miller, appeals to this court from a non-jury conviction of robbery and a five year sentence. Two questions are raised for our consideration: first, whether the circumstantial evidence presented at trial was sufficient for conviction and second, was the sentence imposed illegal because the trial judge was prejudiced by defendant’s juvenile record.
A person charged with a crime may be convicted solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Lowe v. State, 90 Fla. 225, 105 So. 829 (1925); Navarro v. State, Fla.App.1972, 262 So.2d 729; Trimble v. State, Fla.App. 1958, 102 So.2d 738. To be sufficient for conviction the circum*424stantial evidence presented at trial must be consistent with the accused’s guilt, inconsistent with innocence and must exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt. Terzado v. State, Fla.App.1970, 232 So.2d 232; Rhoden v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 227 So.2d 349; Garcia v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 227 So.2d 209; Forbes v. State, Fla.App.1968, 210 So.2d 246; Williams v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 206 So.2d 446; Spina v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 203 So.2d 20.
In the instant case the complaining witness stated that upon returning home one evening she was rushed by a black man approximately 5 feet 10 inches tall in a white short sleeve shirt who snatched her purse. Another witness stated that he saw a black man in a white T shirt leave the victim’s house and get into a back seat of a car with two other black men. A description of the car and its license number was given to the police who later discovered the car and kept it under surveillance. Another man dressed differently from the suspect got into the automobile, but when the vehicle was stopped the victim’s purse was found on the back seat next to the defendant whose physical description and mode of dress matched the reports given by the witnesses. This evidence adduced at trial in the case sub judice was sufficient for conviction in view of the above requirements; therefore, defendant’s first argument is without merit.
The remaining issue before this court deals with defendant’s allegation of prejudice on the part of the trial judge. Defendant contends that his juvenile record was reviewed by the judge and as a result the judge was prejudiced against defendant and the sentence imposed was unduly punitive and severe. Defendant’s argument is not well taken because a review of the record discloses that the judge did not consider or use the juvenile record when defendant was sentenced.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment and sentence herein appealed are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. State, 466 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…ate, 293 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert, denied, 300 So. 2d 21 (Fla.1974) (state’s evidence deemed sufficient to establish that the defendant was an aider and abetter in the murder of a child; second degree murder conviction upheld); Miller v. State, 270 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), cert, denied, 275 So. 2d 16 (Fla.1973) (state’s evidence deemed sufficient to link de [*326] fendant to a purse snatch; robbery conviction upheld); Navarro v. State, 262 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972) (state’s evidence deemed suff…
-
Harris v. State, 307 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…cient for conviction, it must be “ . consistent with the accused’s guilt, inconsistent with innocence and must exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt.” Brown v. State, 1937, 127 Fla. 225, 172 So. 921; Miller v. State, Fla.App.1972, 270 So. 2d 423, 424; Gaetano v. State, Fla.App.1973, 273 So. 2d 84, 86; Whitehead v. State, Fla.App.1973, 273 So. 2d 146, 147-148.2 We are of the opinion that the facts sub judice are supportive of reasonable hypotheses of the defendant’s innocence and, for this…
-
In the Interest of D. J. v. State, 330 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)…nt for conviction, it must be “ . . . consistent with the accused’s guilt, inconsistent with innocence and must exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt. Brown v. State, 1937, 127 Fla. 225, 172 So. 921; Miller v. State, Fla.App.1972, 270 So. 2d 423, 424; Gaetano v. State, Fla.App. 1973, 273 So. 2d 84, 86; Whitehead v. State, Fla.App. 1973, 273 So. 2d 146, 147, 148; Harris v. State, Fla.App.1974, 307 So. 2d 218, 220. We are of the opinion that the facts subjudice are supportive of reasonable h…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lowe v. State, 90 Fla. 255 (Fla. 1925)
- Williams v. State, 206 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)
- Rhoden v. State, 227 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)
- Forbes v. State, 210 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Navarro v. State, 262 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Trimble v. State, 102 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Cowart v. Lewis, 232 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- Garcia v. State, 227 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Terzado v. State, 232 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- Spina v. State, 203 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)