Greene v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Greene v. State

375 So. 2d 55, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 15531

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 26, 1979

DocketNo. 78-128

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 375 So. 2d 55 (Greene 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

Greene v. State, 375 So. 2d 55, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 15531 (Fla. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

The appellant claims the evidence presented by the state at trial was insufficient to sustain his conviction for violating Section 944.43, Florida Statutes (1977). The statute requires proof that the person charged has been committed to the custody of the Department of Offender Rehabilitation; that while in such custody he is found to have possession of a weapon or certain other prohibited items; and that possession of such item is contrary to a rule or regulation of the Department. There was no proof of any specific rule of the Department introduced into evidence at the trial. Neither was the lawful custody of the appellant established. Maggard v. State, 226 So.2d 32 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is reversed.

ANSTEAD and MOORE, JJ., concur. GEIGER, DWIGHT L., Associate Judge, concurs specially with opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant claims the evidence presented by the state at trial was insufficient to sustain his conviction for violating Section 944.43, Florida Statutes (1977). The statute requires proof that the person charged has been committed to the custody of the Department of Offender Rehabilitation; that while in such custody he is found to have possession of a weapon or certain other prohibited items; and that possession of such item is contrary to a rule or regulation of the Department. There was no proof of any specific rule of the Department introduced into evidence at the trial. Neither was the lawful custody of the appellant established. Maggard v. State, 226 So.2d 32 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is reversed.

ANSTEAD and MOORE, JJ., concur. GEIGER, DWIGHT L., Associate Judge, concurs specially with opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

375 So. 2d 55, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 15531, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greene-v-state-fladistctapp-1979.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack