Bartels v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Bartels v. State

24 So. 2d 40, 156 Fla. 535, 1945 Fla. LEXIS 919

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedNovember 6, 1945

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 24 So. 2d 40 (Bartels v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bartels v. State, 24 So. 2d 40, 156 Fla. 535, 1945 Fla. LEXIS 919 (Fla. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

BROWN, J.:

The appellant was informed against for driving an automobile while in an intoxicated condition. The evidence as disclosed by the record did not make out a strong case against the appellant but there was some testimony which if believed by the jury, was sufficient to sustain the verdict. The trial court overruled motion for new trial and imposed a fine and also a revocation of the appellant’s driver’s license for a period of twelve months. As the appellant, a man of 61 years, runs a farm out in the country as well as a small business in the city (which farm he has to visit daily in his automobile) , and as it does not appear that he has ever been charged before with an offense of this nature, the judgment, in so far as it revokes appellant’s driver’s license for twelve months, may be rather harsh in this case, but the court was compelled to so order by the language of the second paragraph of Section 322.25 when construed in connection with Section 322.26, Fla. Statutes 1941, F. S. A. In this general connection, see Dept. of Public Safety v. Koonce, 147 Fla. 616, 3 So. (2nd) 331.

Affirmed.

CHAPMAN, C. J., TERRELL, BUFORD and THOMAS, JJ., concur. ADAMS and SEBRING, JJ., agree to conclusion.

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

BROWN, J.:

The appellant was informed against for driving an automobile while in an intoxicated condition. The evidence as disclosed by the record did not make out a strong case against the appellant but there was some testimony which if believed by the jury, was sufficient to sustain the verdict. The trial court overruled motion for new trial and imposed a fine and also a revocation of the appellant’s driver’s license for a period of twelve months. As the appellant, a man of 61 years, runs a farm out in the country as well as a small business in the city (which farm he has to visit daily in his automobile) , and as it does not appear that he has ever been charged before with an offense of this nature, the judgment, in so far as it revokes appellant’s driver’s license for twelve months, may be rather harsh in this case, but the court was compelled to so order by the language of the second paragraph of Section 322.25 when construed in connection with Section 322.26, Fla. Statutes 1941, F. S. A. In this general connection, see Dept. of Public Safety v. Koonce, 147 Fla. 616, 3 So. (2nd) 331.

Affirmed.

CHAPMAN, C. J., TERRELL, BUFORD and THOMAS, JJ., concur. ADAMS and SEBRING, JJ., agree to conclusion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 So. 2d 40, 156 Fla. 535, 1945 Fla. LEXIS 919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bartels-v-state-fla-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack