Bruton v. State

220 So. 2d 669, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 6091
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 11, 1969·No. No. 68-704·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

By this appeal the defendant seeks review of an adverse judgment of conviction in a non-jury cause, with sentence accordingly.

One witness positively identified the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime; others were not certain that he was the one and they were in conflict as to his apparel. One other witness did indicate that the perpetrator was of the same general size as the appellant.

The judgment of conviction arrived in this court with a presumption of correctness. Crum v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 24; Nelson v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 208 So.2d 506; Gilroy v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 823. Our duty is to examine the record to see if there is sub[670] stantial competent evidence to support the finding's of the trier of the facts. There being such in this record, we affirm. The Supreme Court of Florida has specifically held that positive identification by one witness is sufficient to support a conviction. State v. Sebastian, Fla.1965, 171 So.2d 893.

Therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Bruton v. State, 220 So. 2d 669, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 6091 (Fla. Ct. App. 1969).

220 So. 2d 669 (Bruton v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rolle v. State
711 So. 2d 1388 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
I.R. v. State
385 So. 2d 686 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)
Smith v. State
243 So. 2d 625 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1971)
Douglas v. State
240 So. 2d 649 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1970)
Simmons v. State
236 So. 2d 147 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1970)