Boatwright v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Boatwright v. State

207 So. 2d 488

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 27, 1968

DocketNo. 67-422

StatusPublished

This text of 207 So. 2d 488 (Boatwright 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

Boatwright v. State, 207 So. 2d 488 (Fla. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was tried before the court without a jury on a two count information. Count I charged breaking and entering a building with intent to commit a felony, to-wit: grand larceny. Count II charged grand larceny. The appellant was found and adjudged guilty on Count I and was acquitted on Count II. On consideration of appellant’s contentions on this appeal in the light of the record and the briefs, we find that no reversible error has been shown. The trial judge’s verdict or finding of guilt is supported by the evidence. The ruling of the trial court on the request of the defendant to examine an item of evidence was discretionary, and no abuse of discretion was shown. No reversible error having been made to appear, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was tried before the court without a jury on a two count information. Count I charged breaking and entering a building with intent to commit a felony, to-wit: grand larceny. Count II charged grand larceny. The appellant was found and adjudged guilty on Count I and was acquitted on Count II. On consideration of appellant’s contentions on this appeal in the light of the record and the briefs, we find that no reversible error has been shown. The trial judge’s verdict or finding of guilt is supported by the evidence. The ruling of the trial court on the request of the defendant to examine an item of evidence was discretionary, and no abuse of discretion was shown. No reversible error having been made to appear, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 So. 2d 488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boatwright-v-state-fladistctapp-1968.