Early v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Early v. State

335 So. 2d 619, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 13930

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 27, 1976

DocketNo. 75-1460

StatusPublished

This text of 335 So. 2d 619 (Early 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

Early v. State, 335 So. 2d 619, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 13930 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, defendant below, appeals a final judgment of conviction and sentence, i. e., probation for five years, for grand larceny entered by the trial court after a nonju-ry trial. Appellant’s motion for a new trial was denied.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial because the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and the only evidence presented as to the value of the item stolen, a portable police radio, was inadmissible because it was hearsay.

We have carefully examined the record and have concluded that it contains substantial competent evidence to support the final judgment of the trial court. See Fotianos v. State, 329 So.2d 397 (1st D.C.A.Fla. op. filed April 1, 1976); Samet v. State, Fla.App.1973, 284 So.2d 450; Crum v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 24; Lee v. State, Fla.App.1963, 153 So.2d 351; and 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals § 344. Further, we have considered the other points raised by appellant on appeal and find them to be without merit. Therefore, for the reasons stated and upon the authorities cited, the final judgment of conviction and sentence appealed are affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, defendant below, appeals a final judgment of conviction and sentence, i. e., probation for five years, for grand larceny entered by the trial court after a nonju-ry trial. Appellant’s motion for a new trial was denied.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial because the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and the only evidence presented as to the value of the item stolen, a portable police radio, was inadmissible because it was hearsay.

We have carefully examined the record and have concluded that it contains substantial competent evidence to support the final judgment of the trial court. See Fotianos v. State, 329 So.2d 397 (1st D.C.A.Fla. op. filed April 1, 1976); Samet v. State, Fla.App.1973, 284 So.2d 450; Crum v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 24; Lee v. State, Fla.App.1963, 153 So.2d 351; and 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals § 344. Further, we have considered the other points raised by appellant on appeal and find them to be without merit. Therefore, for the reasons stated and upon the authorities cited, the final judgment of conviction and sentence appealed are affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

335 So. 2d 619, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 13930, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/early-v-state-fladistctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack