JOSEPH PETER D'AGOSTINO, 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.
Affirmed conviction for breaking and entering with intent to commit felony, aggravated assault, and possession of burglary tools where appellant failed to demonstrate reversible error.
An appellant in a criminal case bears the burden of clearly demonstrating that trial proceedings were infected with prejudicial error warranting reversal.
[1] In a criminal appeal, the appellant bears the burden of clearly demonstrating that trial proceedings were infected with prejudicial error to compel reversal of judgment.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceD'Agostino was convicted of unlawfully and feloniously breaking and entering a building with intent to commit a felony, aggravated assault, and posses…
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 Burden Of Proof On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, defendant below, appeals his conviction and sentence, including probation, for unlawfully and feloniously breaking and entering a building with intent to commit a felony therein, aggravated assault, and possession of burglary tools. Appellee was the prosecution below.
An appellant, on an appeal in a criminal case, has the burden of showing that the trial proceedings were so infected with prejudicial error as to compel a reversal of the judgment. Such error must be clearly demonstrated by the appellant. See, e. g., Bryan v. State, Fla.App.1973, 279 So. 2d 332; Stephens v. State, Fla.App. 1973, 279 So. 2d 331; Blackman v. State, Fla.App. 1973, 279 So. 2d 99; and see 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals § 358. In the instant appeal, we have carefully considered the entire record, all the numerous points raised in the briefs, and arguments of counsel in the light of the controlling principles of law, and have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated. The jury was supported in its verdict by substantial evidence and no error was committed which injuriously affected any substantial right of appellant. Therefore, for the reasons stated and upon the authorities cited, the judgment and sentence appealed are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Borges v. State, 394 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…on of whether there can be separate sentences imposed for burglary and possession of burglary tools, we are of the opinion that the two are distinct and separate crimes for which two convictions and two sentences are proper. See D’Agostino v. State, 334 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Section 810.06 of the Florida Statutes (1979) defines the separate crime of possession of burglary tools and only requires possession of such tools with intent to use the same to commit a burglary. The language is quite clear tha…
-
Buckbee v. State, 378 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…order of probation is of no significance since it is undisputed that the condition was actually imposed at the sentencing, and that the defendant was not only entirely aware of that fact, but affirmatively acquiesced in it. See D’Agostino v. State, 334 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 341 So. 2d 1080 (Fla.1977); Pickman v. State, 155 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963), cert. denied, 164 So. 2d 805 (Fla.1964). Thus, the sequence of events is not properly viewed as one in which an “additional” penalty w…
-
Causey Harrell v. State, 405 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…l may prove that the error injuriously affected a substantial right protected by state law, also shifting the burden to the State. Section 924.33, Fla.Stat. (1979).3 See, e. g., White v. State, 356 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); D’Agostino v. State, 334 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 341 So. 2d 1080 (Fla.1977). Under the facts of this case, we find that appellant has failed to demonstrate federal constitutional error. There is no violation of the Fourth Amendment right to be free [*483] from il…
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
- Blackman v. State, 279 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Stephens v. State, 279 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- Bryan v. State, 279 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)