Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Hidalgo v. State

Hidalgo v. State

208 So. 2d 629, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5794
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedApril 2, 1968
DocketNo. 66-769
StatusPublished

This text of 208 So. 2d 629 (Hidalgo 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
Hidalgo v. State, 208 So. 2d 629, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5794 (Fla. Ct. App. 1968).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The record of appellant’s conviction fails to support the judgment and sentence because of the State’s failure to prove an essential element of the crime charged. See § 811.20 Fla.Stat. (1965), F.S.A. The State, in its brief and upon oral argument, recognizes the fatal deficiency. Therefore, the judgment and sentence must be reversed [630]*630upon authority of the law as established in Lasher v. State, 80 Fla. 712, 86 So. 689 (1920); Farrior v. State, Fla.1954, 76 So.2d 148; Johnson v. State, Fla.App.1958, 102 So.2d 412; Patterson v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 766.

Reversed, with directions to discharge appellant.

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

Related

Farrior v. State
76 So. 2d 148 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1954)
Johnson v. State
102 So. 2d 412 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1958)
Lasher v. State
86 So. 689 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1920)
Patterson v. State
167 So. 2d 766 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1964)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
208 So. 2d 629, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hidalgo-v-state-fladistctapp-1968.