LEVERN SIMMONS, 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 evidence was sufficient to sustain the robbery conviction and that the probation revocation did not violate due process.
Appellant was convicted of robbery and his probation was revoked based on a prior conviction. He appealed both the conviction and the revocation.…
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 Robbery cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
These appeals are from a conviction of robbery and a revocation of probation. The appellant received five years in the state penitentiary for robbery and two years in the state penitentiary, to begin at the expiration of the five year sentence, upon the revocation of his probation which was entered upon a prior conviction of assault with intent to commit robbery.
In this appeal, two points are presented. The first questions the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction upon the information charging robbery. A review of the record demonstrates that the evidence is more than sufficient. Therefore, the final judgment and sentence are affirmed.
As to the revocation of probation, the appellant contends that the revocation proceeding violated the due process requirement of the state and federal constitutions. It is claimed that appellant was not given sufficient notice of the proceeding. The appellant does not contend that an objection was raised at any time prior to this appeal, but he urges that the record is so deficient that it constitutes fundamental error. We have examined the record in the light of the briefs and oral argument and find that it is clear that appellant, who was represented by private counsel, understood that the revocation proceeding was being held as an adjunct to the robbery trial. Appellant did not request a separate proceeding, and it is obvious from the record that all parties knew that if appellant were convicted of a new crime, his previous probation would be revoked. Under these circumstances, we hold that no fundamental error appears. See Caston v. State, Fla.1952, 58 So. 2d 694; Egantoff v. State, Fla.App.1968, 208 So. 2d 843.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Levern Simmons v. State, 305 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 1974)…ERVIN, Justice. We have for review by writ of certiorari a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, affirming petitioner’s conviction of robbery and revocation of parole, reported at 287 So. 2d 720. Petitioner alleged conflict with Benitez v. State (Fla.App.1970), 230 So. 2d 190, and Hooks v. State (Fla.App.1970), 207 So. 2d 459. We issued the writ and the parties waived oral argument. Upon further consideration of the briefs and the record, b…
-
Bailey v. State, 358 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…ot sufficient to show compliance with the requirements of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). A point directed to the sufficiency of the affidavit of violation of probation is without merit. See Simmons v. State, 287 So. 2d 720 (Fla.3d DCA 1974). Affirmed.…
-
Bijolle v. State, 405 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Simmons v. State, 287 So. 2d 720 (Fla.3d DCA 1974), cert. discharged, 305 So. 2d 178 (Fla.1974); Bernhardt v. State, 288 So. 2d 490 (Fla.1974); Randolph v. State, 292 So. 2d 374 (Fla.3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 300 So. 2d 901 (Fla.1974).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Egantoff v. State, 208 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Caston v. State, 58 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 1952)