D. S. H., A JUVENILE, 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.
A juvenile was adjudicated delinquent for petit larceny after a non-jury hearing. On appeal, the juvenile challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the delinquency finding. The appellate court affirmed, holding that substantial competent evidence supported the adjudication.
The evidence was sufficient to support the delinquency adjudication. The appellate court examined the record and found it supported by competent substantial evidence.
[1] A claim of insufficiency of the evidence will not prevail on appeal where the record reveals substantial competent evidence to support the verdict and judgment.
[2] Appellate courts are entitled to accept, in favor of the judgment, inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence that support the charge.
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“A judgment of conviction comes to the appellate court with a presumption of correctness; a claim of insufficiency of the evidence will not prevail where examination of the record reveals that there was substantial competent evidence to support the verdict and judgment, with due regard given to the quantum of proof required in such a case”
Establishes the standard of review for sufficiency of evidence claims on appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceD.S.H., a juvenile, was charged by petition for delinquency with petit larceny in violation of Florida Statute § 811.021. A non-jury hearing was condu…
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 Presumption Of Correctness Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By petition for delinquency, D.S.H., a juvenile, was charged with petit larcency, in violation of § 811.021, Fla.Stat. A non-jury hearing was held, and D.S.H. was found to have committed the delinquent act described in the petition. Adjudication of delinquency was withheld and the juvenile was placed on probation in the custody of his parents under the supervision of the Division of Youth Services.
The sole point presented on appeal is that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of delinquency.
A judgment of conviction comes to the appellate court with a presumption of correctness; a claim of insufficiency of the evidence will not prevail where examination of the record reveals that there was substantial competent evidence to support the verdict and judgment, with due regard given to the quantum of proof required in such a case; and in so considering the evidence the appellate court is entitled to accept, in favor of the judgment, inferences reasonably to be drawn from the evidence which support the charge. Crum v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 24, 25. Conflicts in evidence and that it may have been susceptible of differing inferences and presented to the trier of facts with questions as to credibility of witnesses and weight to be given to testimony and other evidence presented, will not establish insufficiency of the evidence to sustain a judgment of conviction when the record discloses there was competent substantial evidence sufficient in law for its support. Wetherinqton v. State, Fla.App. 1972, 263 So. 2d 294.
We have examined the record and we find that the judgment is supported by competent substantial evidence.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hinkle v. State, 355 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…lant and the alleged victim, notwithstanding the form of the agreements between them and the savings and loan associations. See Murray v. Gadsden, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 38, 197 F. 2d 194 (1952); Spark v. Canny, 88 So. 2d 307 (Fla.1956); D. S. H. v. State, 323 So. 2d 292 (Fla. DCA 1975); 10 Am.Jur.2d Banks § 389 (1963); 48 C.J.S. Joint Tenancy § 3 (1947); and Annot., 33 A.L.R.2d 569 (1954). Additionally, appellant contends that certain statements made by the prosecutor in his closing argument constituted a comment…
-
Johnson v. State, 353 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…stolen. Our review of the record reveals that, contrary to appellant’s contention, ap-pellee did show by competent substantial evidence the ownership of the property stolen. See Spinkellink v. State, 313 So. 2d 666 (Fla.1975), and D.S.H. v. State, 323 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). However, we agree with appellant’s contention in regard to the proof of the value of the property stolen. An essential element of the crime of grand larceny is the value of the property stolen, i. e., it must have had a fair mar…
-
R.W. v. State, 31 So. 3d 265 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See D.S.H. v. State, 323 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Crum v. State, 172 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Wetherington v. State, 263 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)