Dent v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dent v. State

391 So. 2d 742, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17910

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 24, 1980

DocketNo. 80-482

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 391 So. 2d 742 (Dent 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

Dent v. State, 391 So. 2d 742, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17910 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his conviction of unauthorized temporary use of a motor vehicle. Defendant asserts the evidence was insufficient to show that the offense occurred at the particular time contained in a statement of particulars filed by the State. We conclude, after a review of the briefs and transcripts furnished in support of this appeal, that the evidence concerning defendant’s unauthorized use and possession of the car was admissible and adequately supports his conviction. We further conclude that the' defendant was not misled or embarrassed in the preparation or presentation of his defense by any asserted variance between the proof at trial and the statement of particulars. Barber v. State, 243 So.2d 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971). Defendant’s other arguments on appeal are without merit and the judgment below is, therefore, affirmed.¹

AFFIRMED.

ANSTEAD, MOORE and BERANEK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his conviction of unauthorized temporary use of a motor vehicle. Defendant asserts the evidence was insufficient to show that the offense occurred at the particular time contained in a statement of particulars filed by the State. We conclude, after a review of the briefs and transcripts furnished in support of this appeal, that the evidence concerning defendant’s unauthorized use and possession of the car was admissible and adequately supports his conviction. We further conclude that the' defendant was not misled or embarrassed in the preparation or presentation of his defense by any asserted variance between the proof at trial and the statement of particulars. Barber v. State, 243 So.2d 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971). Defendant’s other arguments on appeal are without merit and the judgment below is, therefore, affirmed.¹

AFFIRMED.

ANSTEAD, MOORE and BERANEK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

391 So. 2d 742, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dent-v-state-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack