McDonald v. State

423 So. 2d 997, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 22042
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 28, 1982·No. No. 82-501·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of conviction and the enhanced sentence entered thereon are affirmed upon a holding that (1) the information charging burglary was not fatally defective for failure to allege non-consent, see State v. Hicks, 421 So.2d 510 (Fla.1982); (2) the proof with respect to ownership was sufficient, see In the Interest of M.E., 870 So.2d 795 (Fla.1979); Jones v. State, 415 So.2d 852 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Adirim v. State, 350 So.2d 1082 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); cert. denied, 365 So.2d 709 (Fla.1978); (3) the fingerprint evidence establishing the defendant’s presence was sufficient, see Sorey v. State, 419 So.2d 810 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); State v. Perry, 297 So.2d 638 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); and (4) the trial court properly enhanced the defendant’s sentence, pursuant to section 775.084(l)(a)2, Florida Statutes (1979), based upon official court records reflecting prior felony convictions and a pre-sentence investigation report not objected to by appellant which characterized him as incorrigible, see Eutsey v. State, 383 So.2d 219 (Fla.1980); McClain v. State, 356 So.2d 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978).

Affirmed.

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

McDonald v. State, 423 So. 2d 997, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 22042 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

423 So. 2d 997 (McDonald v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wright v. State
455 So. 2d 1341 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)