W. RADFORD BELL
v.
STATE

Fla. | 1940-10-25
Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Thomas, J-. J., concur., Chapman, J., concurs in opinion and judgment., Justices Whitfield and Brown not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
144 Fla. 630 Florida Supreme Court (1940)
Also reported at: 198 So. 212

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.

Synopsis

The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a robbery conviction, finding no reversible error in the record after reviewing the defendant's ten propounded questions.


Holding

No reversible error was disclosed by the record.


Key Quotes

“We have carefully considered the record in the light of the questions propounded and find that no useful purpose can be served by the writing of an opinion.”

This quote establishes the court's review process and its decision not to issue a detailed opinion.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The defendant was charged with robbery without a deadly weapon and subsequently convicted. He appealed this conviction to the Florida Supreme Court, r…

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.

Topics

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Robbery cases and more on FLexlaw


Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

Under information charging the defendant with robbery while not then and there being armed with a deadly weapon, the defendant was convicted and has perfected his appeal from such conviction to this Court.

The appellant has propounded in his brief ten (10) questions for our consideration.

We have carefully considered the record in the light of the questions propounded and find that no useful purpose can be served by the writing of an opinion. No reversible error is disclosed by the record.

The judgment should be affirmed and it is so ordered.

Affirmed.

Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Thomas, J-. J., concur.

Chapman, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.

Justices Whitfield and Brown not participating as authorized 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

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw