CHARLES E. JONES, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
CHARLES E. JONES, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
354 So. 2d 902
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1978)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed.
DOWNEY and LETTS, JJ., concur.
ANSTEAD, J., dissents with opinion.
Dissent
ANSTEAD, Judge,
dissenting in part:
The appellant, Charles E. Jones, was convicted of two counts' of shooting into a dwelling and is here challenging the sufficiency of the evidence identifying him as the guilty party. I believe the evidence as to Count I was insufficient. The state relied on circumstantial evidence. That evidence revealed that the dwelling house of Mr. and Mrs. Linton King was shot into on January 29 and February 3, 1976. As to the January 29 episode, which formed the basis for Count I, the only evidence identifying Jones as the offender was his ownership of the weapon that fired the shot. Other evidence produced at the trial showed that Jones’ father had threatened the Kings. When circumstantial evidence is relied upon to sustain a conviction, the proof must exclude any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Mayo v. State, 71 So. 2d 899 (Fla.1954). The circumstantial evidence presented here simply falls short.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Adkins, 553 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…e free to amend the information to charge misdemeanor perjury. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.140(j) allows amendment of informa-tions on motion of the prosecuting attorney any time before trial because of formal defects. See State v. Johnson, 354 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Dismissal of the felony perjury counts against appellants is affirmed, dismissal of the conspiracy count against Joan Adkins is reversed and dismissal of the RICO count against her is affirmed. ERVIN and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.…
-
State v. McDANIEL, 508 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…session of cannabis in violation of section 893.13(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1985). Neither count of the information specified the amount of cannabis involved and did not specifically mention consideration. The defendant, relying on State v. Johnson, 354 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), and Franklin v. State, 346 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), filed a motion to dismiss the information on the ground that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the information did not allege a felony. Although…
-
State v. Weed, 373 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…(e.s.) We note that the speedy trial rule does not prohibit amendments, nor proscribe enhanced charges. The above quoted subsection of the rule does not exclude amended charges from the 90 day period allowed following mistrial. In State v. Johnson, 354 So. 2d 902 (Fla.lst DCA 1978) the original charge against the defendants failed to specify that defendants were in possession of more than five grams of cannabis so as to charge a felony. In that case, as here, the arrest records showed that the defendants wer…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Mayo v. State, 71 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 1954)