THOMAS J. SMART, 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 defendant's speedy trial rights were not violated and the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
The defendant was convicted of grand larceny and appealed, raising issues regarding his right to a speedy trial and the sufficiency of the evidence pr…
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 Motion For Directed Verdict Of Acquittal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals from his conviction of grand larceny. Two points are before us on appeal. The first is directed to alleged trial court error in denying defendant’s motion to discharge for violation of his right to a speedy trial. From a review of the record, we do not find that defendant was deprived of his right to a speedy trial, as provided by Rule 3.191, Fla.R.Civ.P., nor was denial of his motion to discharge fundamental error under the Florida and United States constitutions.
Defendant’s second point is directed at the trial court’s denial of his motions for acquittal at the close of the State’s case and at the close of all the evidence. Defendant urges that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to support the verdict.
In Garmise v. State, 311 So. 2d 747 (Fla.3d DCA 1975), we stated:
“When a defendant moves for a directed verdict of acquittal, he admits all facts in evidence adduced and every conclusion favorable to the State fairly and reasonably inferable therefrom. ... A motion for judgment of acquittal should not be granted unless it is apparent that no legally sufficient evidence has been submitted upon which the jury could legally find a verdict of guilty. Id. at 748^49.” (Citations deleted.)
We find that there was substantial competent evidence to support the verdict.
Affirmed.