Little v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Little v. State

178 So. 2d 880

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 12, 1965

DocketNo. 65-208

StatusPublished

This text of 178 So. 2d 880 (Little 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

Little v. State, 178 So. 2d 880 (Fla. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant moved in the trial court to vacate a judgment rendered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of grand larceny of a shrimp boat. The motion was denied without evidentiary hearing. This appeal is from the order denying the motion.

An examination of appellant’s motion clearly demonstrates that the trial judge acted correctly. The allegations of the petition, even if true, fail to constitute valid grounds for the relief sought. Gibson v. State, Fla.App.1965, 173 So.2d 766; Marti v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So.2d 506; and Savage v. State, Fla.App.1963, 156 So.2d 566.

Appellant’s brief contains an allegation which is not in his motion. This allegation goes only to the sentence and urges that the trial judge proceeded in the sentencing upon the mistaken conclusion that the defendant had been found guilty by the jury on both of two counts contained in the information. The two counts were: (1) grand larceny of a boat, and (2) using a boat without the permission of the owner. The State has very properly called to our attention the fact that the record shows that the defendant was found guilty of the first charge and not guilty of the second, and that the judge at the sentencing adjudged the defendant guilty on both charges.

Therefore, while we fully approve the order appealed, we, nevertheless, in the interest of justice and upon our own motion, remand this cause to the trial court with directions to set aside the judgment and the' sentence, and to enter a new judgment and sentence in the light of the above.

Remanded for further consideration.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant moved in the trial court to vacate a judgment rendered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of grand larceny of a shrimp boat. The motion was denied without evidentiary hearing. This appeal is from the order denying the motion.

An examination of appellant’s motion clearly demonstrates that the trial judge acted correctly. The allegations of the petition, even if true, fail to constitute valid grounds for the relief sought. Gibson v. State, Fla.App.1965, 173 So.2d 766; Marti v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So.2d 506; and Savage v. State, Fla.App.1963, 156 So.2d 566.

Appellant’s brief contains an allegation which is not in his motion. This allegation goes only to the sentence and urges that the trial judge proceeded in the sentencing upon the mistaken conclusion that the defendant had been found guilty by the jury on both of two counts contained in the information. The two counts were: (1) grand larceny of a boat, and (2) using a boat without the permission of the owner. The State has very properly called to our attention the fact that the record shows that the defendant was found guilty of the first charge and not guilty of the second, and that the judge at the sentencing adjudged the defendant guilty on both charges.

Therefore, while we fully approve the order appealed, we, nevertheless, in the interest of justice and upon our own motion, remand this cause to the trial court with directions to set aside the judgment and the' sentence, and to enter a new judgment and sentence in the light of the above.

Remanded for further consideration.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 So. 2d 880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/little-v-state-fladistctapp-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack