WILLIAM MCCLENEY AND JOHNIE MCCLENEY, APPELLANTS,
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.
William and Johnie McCleney appealed their convictions on multiple counts including assault, battery, and resisting an officer after a bench trial. The appellate court affirmed their convictions and sentences, finding sufficient evidence supported the guilty verdicts and the sentences were within statutory limits.
The court held that substantial, competent evidence supported the convictions and that the sentences, although appearing harsh or severe, were within statutory limitations and therefore appropriate. The trial court's discretion in sentencing was not disturbed.
[1] A trier of fact is responsible for resolving conflicts in testimony and determining which testimony is worthy of belief.
[2] Appellate courts must resolve all conflicts in testimony in favor of the judgment of conviction.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“our review of the record indicates that there was substantial, competent evidence presented to the trial court to support its findings of guilt”
Establishes the sufficiency of evidence standard on appeal and the court's finding that convictions were supported
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliam McCleney and his father Johnie McCleney were charged with approximately fifteen counts including assault and battery, aggravated assault, resi…
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 Sentencing Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendants, William McCleney, and Johnie McCleney, his father, were charged by information with some fifteen counts of assault and battery, aggravated assault, resisting an officer with violence and other offenses. After a non-jury trial, both were found guilty on several of the counts, and the father was sentenced to six months in the Dade County Jail followed by twelve months in the state penitentiary, and the son to eighteen months in the state penitentiary. They now appeal their convictions and the court’s denial of their motions for new trial and for mitigation of sentence.
The two points raised by the appellants are (1) that there is insufficient evidence in the record to support conviction, and (2) that the court erred in sentencing each defendant to eighteen months because it is unconscionable.
As to the first point, our review of the record indicates that there was substantial, competent evidence presented to the trial court to support its findings of guilt. See Crum v. State, Fla.App.196S, 172 So. 2d 24. The appellants allege that there are conflicts in the testimony, but these are to be resolved by the trier of fact, and it is for the trier of fact to reject any testimony not found worthy of belief. Eizenman v. State, Fla.App.1961, 132 So. 2d 763, 764. At this juncture, all conflicts in testimony are to be resolved by this court in support of the judgment of conviction. Dreger v. Sate, Fla.App.1969, 228 So. 2d 431.
As to the second point, although the defendants allege that their sentences “shock the conscience,” they are within the statutory limitations.1 The court’s discretion will not be disturbed when the sentence imposed does not exceed the bounds established by statute, notwithstanding apparent harshness or severity. See Chavigny v. State, Fla.App.1959, 112 So. 2d 910, 915, and Infante v. State, Fla.App.1967, 197 So. 2d 542, 544.
Therefore for the reasons stated and upon the authorities cited, the judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
. Refer to §§ 316.019; 784.03 ; 784.04 and 843.01, Fla.Stat.
GREEN, ROBERT A., Jr., Associate Judge
(concurring).
I have no quarrel with the result reached by the majority opinion in this case. However, I feel the courts in this State must recede from the present position that a sentence will not be reviewed when the sentence does not exceed the maximum established by statute — notwithstanding the apparent harshness or severity of the sentence. A procedure must be adopted for appellate review of sentencing in criminal cases so that grossly disparate sentencing in various areas of the State and in similar cases within the same area can be made more uniform. The best way to effect this change is to recede from the above position.
Obviously, if such a procedure is instituted, certain guidelines for its application would be promulgated. However, in the case at bar, I do not feel that the sentences imposed meet any reasonable test for modification due to harshness.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vernal Amtri Turnquist v. State, 332 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…e, Fla.App.1959, 112 So. 2d 910; Evans v. State, Fla.App.1967, 197 So. 2d 323; Fuller v. Wainwright, Fla.1970, 238 So. 2d 65; Davis v. State, Fla.App.1973, 277 So. 2d 790; High v. State, Fla.App.1973, 284 So. 2d 239; McCleney v. State, Fla.App.1974, 304 So. 2d 459; Flewellyn v. State, Fla.App.1975, 308 So. 2d 46; McCrae v. State, Fla.App.1975, 313 So. 2d 429; Wilkinson v. State, Fla.App. 1975, 322 So. 2d 620.…
Authorities Cited
- Crum v. State, 172 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Eizenman v. State, 132 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Infante v. State, 197 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Chavigny v. State, 112 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Dreger v. State, 228 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)