THOMAS L. GILBERT, 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 appellant's contentions for reversal were without merit and that the judgment should be affirmed.
Thomas L. Gilbert was indicted for first-degree murder and robbery. He was granted a separate trial, found guilty by a jury of second-degree murder an…
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 Identification Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By indictment the appellant Thomas L. Gilbert and one William V. Watson were charged, in one count, with commission of first degree murder, and, in a second count, with the crime of robbery. In the criminal episode for which the defendant and Watson were indicted, two men robbed the victim and his wife, in the course of which one of the men shot and killed the victim.
The defendant Gilbert moved for and was granted separate trial, upon which he was found guilty by a jury of second degree murder and of robbery. Sentences were imposed for each of those offenses, and this appeal ensued.
We hold the contentions presented by the appellant for reversal are lacking in merit. Introduction of evidence of identification of the second man involved in the criminal episode (in addition to evidence of identification of the defendant) was not prejudicial error. McClendon v. State, Fla. 1967, 196 So. 2d 905, 910; Hennessy v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 198 So. 2d 37 (cert. den. 389 U.S. 994, 88 S.Ct. 496, 19 L. Ed.2d 489). The court was eminently correct in denying the defendant’s motion for directed verdict of acquittal. The defendant did not testify, and presented no evidence. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to establish identification of him as a perpetrator of the alleged crimes. There was competent substantial evidence to support the verdict, and it was the province of the jury to resolve any conflicts in the evidence. There was evidence of positive identification of the defendant by the widow of the victim, prior to trial from photographs and a lineup, and at the trial. It was proper to impose sentences for the two crimes of which the defendant was found guilty. See Estevez v. State, Fla.1975, 313 So. 2d 692 (1975).
No reversible error having been shown, the judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Truluck Herbert Johnson v. State, 348 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); Stuckey v. State, 199 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967); Jenkins v. State, 208 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); Cason v. State, 211 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); Smith v. State, 221 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); Gilbert v. State, 311 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Affirmed.…
-
Alray Singleton v. State, 315 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…ated that he was not the robber. The judgment and sentence are affirmed upon the authority of the rule stated in State v. Sebastian, Fla.1965, 171 So. 2d 893; see also Taylor v. State, Fla.App.1967, 199 So. 2d 517 and Gilbert v. State, Fla.App.1975, 311 So. 2d 384. Affirmed.…
-
Johnson v. State, 352 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…s v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968); United States v. Francoeur, 547 F. 2d 891 (5th Cir. 1977); United States v. Cooper, 472 F. 2d 64 (5th Cir. 1973); Lynch v. State, 293 So. 2d 44 (Fla.1974); and Gilbert v. State, 311 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ciro Estevez v. State, 313 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1975)
- McCLENDON v. State, 196 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 1967)
- Hennessy v. State, 198 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Powers v. Kentucky, 389 U.S. 994 (U.S. 1967)
- Penrice v. Oliver, 389 U.S. 994 (U.S. 1967)