Anderson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Anderson v. State

463 So. 2d 1224, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 421, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12350

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 12, 1985

DocketNo. 83-2472

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 463 So. 2d 1224 (Anderson 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

Anderson v. State, 463 So. 2d 1224, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 421, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12350 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant takes this appeal from an adjudication of guilt of burglary and sentence to five years’ imprisonment. He also seeks review of a judgment of direct criminal contempt and a sentence to six months in the county jail.

The several grounds relied on for reversal have been considered in the light of the record, briefs and arguments of counsel, and we have found no reversible error upon any of the alleged grounds. The verdict of the jury is supported by the evidence and the rulings of the trial court are without error. See Rose v. State, 425 So.2d 521, 523 (Fla.), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1049, 103 S.Ct. 1496, 75 L.Ed.2d 928 (1983); White v. State, 377 So.2d 1149, 1150 (Fla.1979), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 845, 101 S.Ct. 129, 66 L.Ed.2d 54 (1980); Miller v. State, 430 So.2d 611, 615 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Grissom v. State, 405 So.2d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Ward v. State, 354 So.2d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Therefore the judgments of conviction and sentences are affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant takes this appeal from an adjudication of guilt of burglary and sentence to five years’ imprisonment. He also seeks review of a judgment of direct criminal contempt and a sentence to six months in the county jail.

The several grounds relied on for reversal have been considered in the light of the record, briefs and arguments of counsel, and we have found no reversible error upon any of the alleged grounds. The verdict of the jury is supported by the evidence and the rulings of the trial court are without error. See Rose v. State, 425 So.2d 521, 523 (Fla.), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1049, 103 S.Ct. 1496, 75 L.Ed.2d 928 (1983); White v. State, 377 So.2d 1149, 1150 (Fla.1979), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 845, 101 S.Ct. 129, 66 L.Ed.2d 54 (1980); Miller v. State, 430 So.2d 611, 615 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Grissom v. State, 405 So.2d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Ward v. State, 354 So.2d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Therefore the judgments of conviction and sentences are affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

463 So. 2d 1224, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 421, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-state-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack