CLIFFORD MEYERS, 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.
Clifford Meyers appeals his conviction for possession of heroin, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal based on allegedly insufficient evidence. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirms the conviction, holding that the trial court properly resolved conflicting testimony and that substantial competent evidence supported the guilty finding.
The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding that substantial competent evidence supported the trial court's judgment of guilt. The court held that the trial court, as the trier of fact, has the authority to resolve conflicts in testimony and rely on evidence it finds credible, and that on appeal, all conflicts and reasonable inferences are resolved in support of the conviction.
[1] A trial court, as the trier of fact, has the authority to resolve conflicts in the evidence and to credit testimony it finds credible.
[2] On appellate review, all conflicts and reasonable inferences from the evidence are resolved in favor of the judgment of conviction.
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“it is within the trial court's province as the trier of fact to resolve conflicts in the evidence presented and to rely on that which he finds worthy of belief”
Establishes the trial court's discretion to assess credibility and resolve conflicting testimony
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMeyers was charged with possession of heroin and tried before the court without a jury. Officer Hudson was the state's sole witness testifying to the …
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 Possession Of Heroin cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant was charged by information with the crime of possession of heroin. Upon a trial before the court, without a jury, he was found guilty and was so adjudged and sentenced to imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a term of three years. On appeal therefrom, it is contended by the appellant that the trial court erred in denying a motion for judgment of acquittal at the conclusion of the presentation of evidence by the state and at the close of the case, on the ground that the evidence upon which the conviction was based was insufficient to sustain the conviction.
Defendant-appellant complains that because Officer Hudson, the state’s sole witness as to the facts, contradicted himself under oath, his testimony was void of credibility and, therefore, the state did not prove the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. We acknowledge that although conflicts in the testimony do exist, it is within the trial court’s province as the trier of fact to resolve conflicts in the evidence presented and to rely on that which he finds worthy of belief. Hoover v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 212 So. 2d 95; Eizenman v. State, Fla.App.1961, 132 So. 2d 763. After conviction and at this, the review stage of the proceedings, all conflicts and reasonable inferences therefrom are resolved in support of the judgment of conviction. Shuler v. State, Fla.App.1968, 213 So. 2d 312; Walden v. State, Fla.App.1966, 191 So. 2d 68.
Having found substantial competent evidence in the record to support the trial judge’s determination of guilt, we, therefore, affirm. Tafero v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 223 So. 2d 564, cert. den., 225 So. 2d 912; Williams v. State, Fla.App.1966, 187 So. 2d 913, cert. den., 194 So. 2d 622.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Eizenman v. State, 132 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Hoover v. State, 212 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Tafero v. State, 223 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Sobol v. Sobol, 191 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Morena Williams v. State, 187 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Shuler v. State, 213 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Santini Bros., Inc. v. Overstreet, 194 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 1966)
- Morena and Osman Williams v. State, 194 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 1966)
- Simpson v. State, 225 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1969)
- Tafero v. State, 225 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1969)