ALEX BARTON, 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.
Alex Barton was convicted of two counts of selling marijuana to persons under 21 years old and sentenced to 30 years imprisonment as a subsequent offender. The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding the trial was fairly conducted and the verdicts were supported by the evidence.
The appellate court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding that the evidence amply supported the jury verdicts and the trial court's rulings did not constitute reversible error.
[1] A prior conviction for possession of marijuana under the Uniform Narcotic Drug Law can be used to enhance a sentence for a subsequent offense of selling marijuana.
[2] A jury verdict is considered amply supported by the evidence if the record discloses a vigorously and fairly tried case.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“The case was vigorously and fairly tried and that the verdicts are amply supported by the evidence.”
The court's basis for affirming the conviction, emphasizing the sufficiency of evidence and fairness of the trial.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBarton was charged in two informations with selling marijuana in violation of Florida drug laws. Both sales allegedly occurred in 1972 (February 10 an…
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 Florida Drug Abuse Law cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Alex Barton, a/k/a Ellis, was charged in two informations filed by the county solicitor of Hillsborough County with selling cannabis, commonly known as marijuana, in violation of Section 404.02, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., of the Florida Drug Abuse Law.
One information, an amended direct information, charged appellant with selling marijuana to a person under 21 years on February 10, 1972. It was alleged in said information that appellant had been convicted on November 3, 1969, of the offense of possession of marijuana pursuant to Section 398.03, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., of the Uniform Narcotic Drug Law.
The other information, a second amended direct information, charged appellant with selling marijuana to a person under 21 years on February 26, 1972. This information alleged therein the. same prior conviction as did the first amended direct information.
Barton entered a plea of not guilty to each offense, was tried and found guilty by a jury, and sentenced as a subsequent offender for a period of 30 years on each offense, said sentences to run concurrently.
Appellant filed a motion for new trial which the trial judge denied after hearing.
Notice of Appeal was filed in this court to review the judgment and sentence. Appellant was represented very ably by an assistant public defender in the trial court. He is being represented in this court by an attorney from that office.
We specify that the grounds raised by appellant on this appeal were argued before the trial court at the hearing on appellant’s motion for new trial and were decided by the court adversely to the appel*301lant. We agree with this ruling by the learned trial judge.
We have carefully considered the grounds relied on by appellant for reversal in the light of the record and briefs, oral argument having been waived by the parties, and we find no reversible error shown. The record discloses that the case was vigorously and fairly tried and that the verdicts are amply supported by the evidence. The rulings of the trial court challenged by the appellant did not on the record and under the law as we comprehend it constitute reversible error.
The judgment and sentence appealed is therefore,
Affirmed.
MANN, C. J., and HOBSON and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barton v. State, 291 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 1974)…BOYD, Justice. This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, reported at 275 So. 2d 300. Conflict has been alleged between the decision sought to be reviewed and Barnhill v. State,1 Benson v. State,2 and State ex rel. Lockmiller v. Mayo.3 The petition for writ of certiorari reflected apparent jurisdiction in this Court. We issued the w…