Ambrose v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ambrose v. State

397 So. 2d 380, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19256

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 21, 1981

DocketNo. NN-292

StatusPublished

This text of 397 So. 2d 380 (Ambrose v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ambrose v. State, 397 So. 2d 380, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19256 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a conviction of petty larceny of a bicycle. The defendant contends that the trial judge erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal, in denying his motion for new trial, in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment or, in the alternative, to challenge the composition of the grand jury, in sentencing him to six months probation, and in failing to give his requested jury instruction. Having examined the record, the arguments of counsel, and the applicable legal authorities, we find that the defendant has not demonstrated reversible error in his conviction for petty larceny. However, we remand to the trial court to reduce the term of probation from six months to sixty days. See, Swift v. State, 362 So.2d 723 (Fla.2d DCA 1978). In all other respects the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

REMANDED for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

BOOTH and SHAW, JJ., and LILES, WOODIE A., Associate Judge (Retired), concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a conviction of petty larceny of a bicycle. The defendant contends that the trial judge erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal, in denying his motion for new trial, in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment or, in the alternative, to challenge the composition of the grand jury, in sentencing him to six months probation, and in failing to give his requested jury instruction. Having examined the record, the arguments of counsel, and the applicable legal authorities, we find that the defendant has not demonstrated reversible error in his conviction for petty larceny. However, we remand to the trial court to reduce the term of probation from six months to sixty days. See, Swift v. State, 362 So.2d 723 (Fla.2d DCA 1978). In all other respects the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

REMANDED for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

BOOTH and SHAW, JJ., and LILES, WOODIE A., Associate Judge (Retired), concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

397 So. 2d 380, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ambrose-v-state-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack