Hoed v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hoed v. State

244 So. 2d 557

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 26, 1971

DocketNo. 70-687

StatusPublished

This text of 244 So. 2d 557 (Hoed 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

Hoed v. State, 244 So. 2d 557 (Fla. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant appeals from a final judgment and sentence adjudicating him guilty on one count of grand larceny. The appellant contends that the information was insufficient to charge him with the essential elements of the crime of larceny by false pretenses. A review of the information and the cases cited does not demonstrate clearly that the trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss the information on this ground. See Anglin v. Mayo, Fla.1956, 88 So.2d 918; Gaynor v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 196 So.2d 19; and § 811.021(5), Fla. Stat., F.S.A.

'The appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction. We have reviewed the record and find that there was sufficient, competent and substantial evidence upon which the trial court could adjudicate the defendant guilty of the crime as charged in the information. See Hoover v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 95; and Pabst v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 169 So.2d 329.

The final judgment is

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant appeals from a final judgment and sentence adjudicating him guilty on one count of grand larceny. The appellant contends that the information was insufficient to charge him with the essential elements of the crime of larceny by false pretenses. A review of the information and the cases cited does not demonstrate clearly that the trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss the information on this ground. See Anglin v. Mayo, Fla.1956, 88 So.2d 918; Gaynor v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 196 So.2d 19; and § 811.021(5), Fla. Stat., F.S.A.

'The appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction. We have reviewed the record and find that there was sufficient, competent and substantial evidence upon which the trial court could adjudicate the defendant guilty of the crime as charged in the information. See Hoover v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 95; and Pabst v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 169 So.2d 329.

The final judgment is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 So. 2d 557, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoed-v-state-fladistctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack