Leto v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Leto v. State

270 So. 2d 752

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 26, 1972

DocketNo. 71-1287

StatusPublished

This text of 270 So. 2d 752 (Leto 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

Leto v. State, 270 So. 2d 752 (Fla. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellants, defendants below, appeal their conviction for grand larceny. We have considered the several contentions of the appellants in the light of the record and briefs and conclude that no reversible error has been shown. The trial court did not err in holding the informations were sufficient and denying defendants’ motion to dismiss on that ground. Their motion to dismiss on the ground of former jeopardy was properly denied. It was not shown that in ordering mistrial in the circumstances presented the trial court did not “act[ed] within the orbit of his reasonable discretion.” See Goodman v. State ex rel. Furlong, Fla.1971, 247 So.2d 47, 49. Cf. Adkins v. Smith, Fla. 1967, 205 So.2d 530. The value of the property revealed to have been taken was sufficiently shown in evidence. The contentions of the appellants that certain conduct of the trial judge in the course of the trial was such as to require a reversal, and that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions, have been considered and found to be without merit.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellants, defendants below, appeal their conviction for grand larceny. We have considered the several contentions of the appellants in the light of the record and briefs and conclude that no reversible error has been shown. The trial court did not err in holding the informations were sufficient and denying defendants’ motion to dismiss on that ground. Their motion to dismiss on the ground of former jeopardy was properly denied. It was not shown that in ordering mistrial in the circumstances presented the trial court did not “act[ed] within the orbit of his reasonable discretion.” See Goodman v. State ex rel. Furlong, Fla.1971, 247 So.2d 47, 49. Cf. Adkins v. Smith, Fla. 1967, 205 So.2d 530. The value of the property revealed to have been taken was sufficiently shown in evidence. The contentions of the appellants that certain conduct of the trial judge in the course of the trial was such as to require a reversal, and that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions, have been considered and found to be without merit.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 So. 2d 752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leto-v-state-fladistctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack