Joseph v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Joseph v. State

830 So. 2d 911, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 17159, 2002 WL 31557309

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 20, 2002·No. No. 4D01-109·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

SHAHOOD, J.

We affirm appellant, Lou Joseph’s, conviction and sentence for burglary of an occupied dwelling. Appellant argues on appeal that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that appellant was guilty of burglary of an occupied dwelling and his motion for judgment of acquittal should have been granted. This argument made on appeal was not preserved in the trial court and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. See F.B. v. State, 816 So.2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)(citing State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7 (Fla.1974)). We affirm all other issues raised without comment.

AFFIRMED.

STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ„ concur.

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

SHAHOOD, J.

We affirm appellant, Lou Joseph’s, conviction and sentence for burglary of an occupied dwelling. Appellant argues on appeal that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that appellant was guilty of burglary of an occupied dwelling and his motion for judgment of acquittal should have been granted. This argument made on appeal was not preserved in the trial court and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. See F.B. v. State, 816 So.2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)(citing State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7 (Fla.1974)). We affirm all other issues raised without comment.

AFFIRMED.

STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ„ concur.

Joseph v. State, 830 So. 2d 911, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 17159, 2002 WL 31557309 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

830 So. 2d 911 (Joseph v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related