CHARLES PITTMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Charles Pittman appealed his conviction for unlawful entry into a cafe with intent to commit a crime. The Florida appellate court affirmed his conviction, rejecting both his challenge to the trial court's denial of a continuance and his sufficiency of evidence argument.
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that Pittman failed to establish an abuse of discretion in the denial of the continuance motion and that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the verdict.
[1] Where fingerprint evidence is the sole evidence identifying an accused as the perpetrator of a crime, the State must prove that the fingerprints could only have been made…
[2] A conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
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 defendant had a period of at least one week to advise his counsel of his alleged employment by the witness William Quinn. If he failed to do so, he failed at his own peril.”
Establishes that appellant's failure to timely inform counsel of a witness does not constitute abuse of discretion in denying a continuance when requested on the day of trial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePittman was convicted by jury of unlawfully entering or remaining in Allen's Cafe with intent to commit an offense. The cafe owner secured the buildin…
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 Intent To Commit An Offense Therein cases and more on FLexlaw
MELVIN, Judge.
Appellant-defendant appeals from the judgment and sentence imposed upon him in the Circuit Court of Gulf County, Florida, upon his conviction by a jury of the offense of having unlawfully entered or unlawfully remained in a cafe located in said county, with the intent to commit an offense therein, contrary to the provisions of Section 810.02, Florida Statutes (1975).
The defendant had indicated that he would obtain private counsel and the court, having been later advised that he was unable to do so, appointed counsel to represent him. This appointment came two weeks before the trial date.. Upon the date of the trial, defense counsel advised the court that the defendant had, that day, advised counsel of the name of a witness, William Quinn; that Quinn owned the building that was allegedly broken into and that defendant had worked for Quinn on the building. Defendant urges that the testimony of witness Quinn would have been material in his defense because the thrust of the State’s case against the defendant turned upon fingerprints taken from broken glass from a window at the point of entry.
The defendant had a period of at least one week to advise his counsel of his alleged employment by the witness William Quinn. If he failed to do so, he failed at his own peril. State’s witness Damon Peters, Jr., testified that he owned the building containing Allen’s Cafe. Peters testified that, within his memory, defendant Pittman at no time did any work on his building. Peters further testified that Quinn rented a building across the street from Allen’s Cafe, not the building containing Allen’s Cafe.
The defendant has failed to establish any abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in denying his motion for continuance. Harrelson v. State, 259 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972).
The second point presented by the defendant challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict and the judgment of conviction based thereon. The evidence reveals that the point of entry into Allen’s Cafe was a window located above a door, which window was seven and one-half feet above ground level, and boarded up from the inside. The record reveals that the defendant was not the worker who either originally placed the window in its position or who nailed the inside boards in their position. The owner of the business testified that he secured the building and closed the business at approximately 3:00 a. m. and returned at 5:30 a. m. to find that his building had been broken into, that glass was broken and the boards referred to had been removed. An F.B.I. fingerprint expert testified that fingerprints removed from the broken window were the fingerprints of the defendant. The defendant offered as his explanation of the presence of the fingerprints that he previously had worked on the building and that, thereby, his fingerprints could have been put on the broken glass. The State presented testimony to the effect that the defendant had never worked on the building and that the defendant’s witness, whose name the defendant revealed to his trial counsel on the day of trial, had not rented the premises of Allen’s Cafe. Although the defendant testified that he had worked on the building in which Allen’s Cafe is located, he did not claim that he worked in the area where the door and the broken window were located. The jury had the opportunity to observe the candor and demeanor of this defendant while he was testifying and the jury chose not to believe him.
Where a defendant offers his hypothesis of innocence in a circumstantial evidence case, and there is before the jury sufficient evidence outside the testimony offered by the defendant in connection with his theory of innocence, from which the jury could reasonably conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant and no one else committed the crime charged, such jury finding is to be upheld. See Atkinson v. State, 247 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971) and Tillman v. State, 353 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
The defendant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED.
SMITH, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Goree v. State, 411 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…asonable time or that the defendant, charged with these crimes some five months earlier, had exercised any diligence, much less due diligence, in procuring this witness’s presence. See Moore v. State, 59 Fla. 23, 52 So. 971 (1910); Pittman v. State, 360 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Whalen v. State, 335 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Gause v. State, 270 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Coney v. State, 258 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). And, again, if on the following morning, with final arguments about to co…
-
Warren v. State, 475 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…ellant’s knowledge. Accordingly, we hold that, under all the facts and circumstances of this case, a jury could find that appellant’s hypothesis of innocence was not reasonable. Dewey v. State, 186 So. 224, 135 Fla. 443 (Fla.1938); Pittman v. State, 360 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Guthrie v. State, 407 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Cf., Bradford v. State, 460 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). We also find without merit appellant’s assertion the trial judge erred in failing to grant her motion to sever the…
-
Miller v. State, 764 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…counsel’s motions for a continuance immediately prior to trial is subject to the “abuse of discretion” standard of review. See Loren v. State, 518 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); McKay v. State, 504 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Pittman v. State, 360 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). “[O]nly an unreasoning and arbitrary ‘insistence upon expeditiousness in the face of a justifiable request for delay’ violates the right to the assistance of counsel.” Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 11-12, 103 S.Ct. 1610, 75 L.Ed…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tillman v. State, 353 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Harrelson v. State, 259 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)
- Atkinson v. State, 247 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)