Hidalgo v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hidalgo v. State

208 So. 2d 629, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5794

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 2, 1968·No. No. 66-769·Published

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] upon 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

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] upon 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.

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

Pincite

208 So. 2d 629 (Hidalgo v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related