HOLLIS MILLS, 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 trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying continuances and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction.
The defendant was charged with uttering a worthless check, grand larceny, and receiving stolen property. After a non-jury trial, the defendant was con…
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 Uttering A Worthless Check cases and more on FLexlaw
An information was filed against the defendant-appellant for (1) uttering a worthless check, (2) grand larceny, and (3) buying, receiving and concealing stolen property. A non-jury trial was held and the defendant was convicted of uttering a worthless check and then sentenced to one year in the Dade County Jail.
On appeal, appellant first contends that the trial court erred in denying the defense motions for continuance. “As a general rule, the granting or denial of a motion for continuance is within the discretion of the trial court and the action of the court on such motion will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a clear showing that there has been a palpable abuse of that discretion to the disadvantage of the accused, or, whereby his rights may have been jeopardized.” Douglas v. State, Fla.App.1968, 216 So.2d 82 and cases cited therein. The record on appeal in the case sub judice does reflect in fact that the trial court did grant several continuances to the defense but then denied defendant’s motions requesting further continuances. Thus, no abuse of discretion having been made to appear, appellant’s first argument must fail.
Secondly, defendant-appellant contends the trial court erred in finding sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the alleged offense. We disagree. After a thorough examination of the record, we conclude that there was competent substan*36tial evidence to support the judgment of conviction as to the commission of the offense and as to the identity of the appellant as the perpetrator thereof.
Accordingly, the judgment herein appealed must be and hereby is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Zeigler v. State, 402 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 1981)…as a denial of adequate time to prepare a defense and a denial of due process. Generally, the action of the trial court on a motion for continuance will not be disturbed on appeal unless there has been a palpable abuse of discretion. Mills v. State, 280 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). The thrust of the requests for continuances was essentially that defendant needed more time to prepare his defense. However, in his motion for continuance the defendant consistently and expressly refused to waive his right to a…
-
Williams v. State, 438 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 1983)…resented that he was unprepared to present any evidence of mitigating circumstances. The granting or denial of a motion for continuance is within the discretion of the trial court. Durean v. State, 350 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Mills v. State, 280 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Douglas v. State, 216 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). This principle remains intact even in situations where the death penalty is of issue. See Cooper v. State, 336 So. 2d 1133 (Fla.1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 925, 97 S.Ct. 2200,…
-
Mobley v. State, 327 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…f his closeness and intimacy with the circumstances of the case, he will not be reversed on appeal unless there is a clear showing of a palpable abuse of this discretion. Sikes v. State, Fla.App.1973, 280 So. 2d 17; and Mills v. State, Fla.App.1973, 280 So. 2d 35. In the instant appeal, the record shows that the trial court properly inquired into the surrounding circumstances of ap-pellee’s failure to provide appellant with the name of a witness pursuant to his request for reciprocal discovery. Further, the…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Taft Douglas, Jr. v. State, 216 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)