G. W. B., A JUVENILE, AND G. F. G., A JUVENILE, APPELLANTS (DEFENDANTS),
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE (STATE)
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.
Two juveniles appealed their adjudications for receiving stolen property, arguing the evidence was insufficient. The appellate court affirmed the adjudications, finding that the juveniles failed to properly preserve their arguments through adequate motions and assignments of error.
The court affirmed the adjudications, holding that the juveniles failed to properly preserve their appellate arguments because their motions for judgment of acquittal were insufficient under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.380(b), their motion for a new trial was stated in mere general terms without specific argument, and their assignments of error failed to comply with appellate rule requirements.
[1] A motion for judgment of acquittal is insufficient if it does not fully set forth the grounds on which it is based.
[2] An oral motion for a new trial must specify the grounds for the motion to be considered by an appellate court.
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“The motions for judgment of acquittal were insufficient because they did not fully set forth the grounds on which they were based.”
Establishes the standard for adequate preservation of motions for acquittal and the basis for rejecting the juveniles' arguments.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTwo juveniles, G.W.B. and G.F.G., were adjudicated guilty of receiving stolen property following an adjudication hearing. At the conclusion of the Sta…
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 Assignments Of Error cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
Following an adjudicatory hearing, the two juveniles were found guilty of receiving stolen property as charged.
At the conclusion of the State’s case and at the conclusion of all of the evidence, the juveniles moved for judgments of acquittal on the ground that the evidence was insufficient. In both instances, the only argument made in support of the motions was that the juvenile, G.F.G., had not been identified. Following adjudication of guilt, the juveniles orally moved for a new trial on the ground that the adjudications were contrary to the law and the weight of the evidence. No supporting argument was made. The trial court denied all of the motions.
Thereafter, the juveniles appealed and assigned as errors that the adjudications were contrary to the law, that they were contrary to the weight and sufficiency of the evidence, and that they were contrary to the law and the evidence. In their brief, the juveniles argue that the court erred in refusing to dismiss the charge made against them because the State failed to prove that the property was stolen property on the date it was received by them and failed to prove the ownership of the property.
The motions for judgment of acquittal were insufficient because they did not fully set forth the grounds on which they were based. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.380(b). The only argument made in support of the motions was that the juvenile, G.F.G., had not been identified. On appeal, this issue is not urged as error. The oral motion for a new trial was stated in mere general terms and did not point out to the court with specificity why the juveniles were entitled to a new trial. In fact, no presentation or argument was made to establish the grounds asserted. Unless the error complained of is brought to the attention of the trial court, it is not preserved and cannot be considered by this Court.
In addition, the assignments of error were insufficient. Fla.App. Rule 3.5(c) requires that assignments of error shall designate identified judicial acts. The assignments of error in this case failed to comply with the applicable appellate rule.
The orders appealed are affirmed.
BOYER, C. J., and McCORD, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
McRAE v. State, 383 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)…d in admitting it. While we agree that Piacenti’s testimony was hearsay,1 any error in admitting [*292] it may not be reviewed on appeal in the absence of timely objection below. Tyler v. Triesback, 69 Fla. 595, 69 So. 49 (1915); G. W. B. v. State, 340 So. 2d 969 (Fla.1st DCA), cert. denied, 348 So. 2d 948 (Fla.1977). Timely objections were made to the challenged testimony of Riley and Hoyl-man, however, and the trial court erred in overruling these objections. A witness’ testimony may not be corroborated b…
-
DE LA Cova v. State, 355 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…the element.1 We hold that this point does not present reversible error because it was not raised in the trial court. A bare bones motion for directed verdict does not raise every possible claimed insufficiency in the evidence. Cf. G.W.B. v. State, 340 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Here, the argument is made for the first time on appeal and ought not be considered unless it amounts to fundamental error. It clearly was not fundamental because the premises were fully described and no prejudice to the defenda…
-
Holman v. State, 347 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…e, 154 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 2nd D.C.A. 1963); Collins v. State, 180 So. 2d 340 (Fla.1965); Russ v. State, 313 So. 2d 758 (Fla.1975); Darden v. State, 329 So. 2d 287 (Fla.1976), cert. dism. - U.S. -, 97 S.Ct. 1671, 51 L.Ed.2d 751 (1977); G.W.B. v. State, 340 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1976); Section 59.041, Florida Statutes (1975). Therefore, the convictions here under review be and the same are hereby affirmed. Affirmed. . * * * * * * “Pursuant to Rule 3.200 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, the De…
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence