Lee v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lee v. State

260 So. 2d 878, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 7031

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 25, 1972·No. No. O-457·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

By this appeal from a judgment of conviction for the offenses of aiding and assisting in the conducting of a lottery, possession of lottery tickets, and possession of lottery devices, appellant contends primarily that there is an absence of sufficient proof as to venue. Appellee, State, contends that appellant failed to preserve the foregoing point on appeal by not timely filing a motion for new trial. The record reflects that appellant preserved the foregoing point on appeal by timely filing a motion for judgment of acquittal. It is our conclusion, after considering the cause upon the merits, that the judgment appealed should be and is hereby affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K„ Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

By this appeal from a judgment of conviction for the offenses of aiding and assisting in the conducting of a lottery, possession of lottery tickets, and possession of lottery devices, appellant contends primarily that there is an absence of sufficient proof as to venue. Appellee, State, contends that appellant failed to preserve the foregoing point on appeal by not timely filing a motion for new trial. The record reflects that appellant preserved the foregoing point on appeal by timely filing a motion for judgment of acquittal. It is our conclusion, after considering the cause upon the merits, that the judgment appealed should be and is hereby affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K„ Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.

Lee v. State, 260 So. 2d 878, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 7031 (Fla. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

260 So. 2d 878 (Lee v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related