Mincey v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mincey v. State

256 So. 2d 545

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 18, 1972

DocketNo. 71-508

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 256 So. 2d 545 (Mincey 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

Mincey v. State, 256 So. 2d 545 (Fla. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was informed against for the crime of larceny of an automobile. Following the receiving of evidence, he was adjudicated guilty and, prior to sentencing, the trial judge noted the prior record of the appellant and the fact that he was on probation for two previous criminal incidents. Thereafter, he adjudicated the appellant guilty of larceny of the automobile as charged, revoked probation, and sentenced him within the limits of the applicable statutes.

This appeal followed. Two points were presented for reversal: first, that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the charge of larceny of an auto vehicle and, second, that the trial judge erred in reviewing the appellant’s previous record prior to sentencing, reflecting his brushes with the law.

The State has filed a motion to quash, contending that the first point is not valid in that no motion for a new trial was made, citing State v. Owens, Fla.1970, 233 So.2d 389, and second, that there was no error committed by the trial judge in examining the pre-sentence report prior to sentencing, citing Cross v. State, 96 Fla. 768, 119 So. 380.

We find merit in the motion to quash but have, in an abundance of caution, reviewed the entire record on appeal. And, following such, dispense with oral argument pursuant to the provision of Rule 3.10, subd. e, Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A., and affirm the conviction and sentence here under review upon the authority of State v. Owens, supra, and County of Dade v. Baird, Fla.App.1968, 211 So.2d 609.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was informed against for the crime of larceny of an automobile. Following the receiving of evidence, he was adjudicated guilty and, prior to sentencing, the trial judge noted the prior record of the appellant and the fact that he was on probation for two previous criminal incidents. Thereafter, he adjudicated the appellant guilty of larceny of the automobile as charged, revoked probation, and sentenced him within the limits of the applicable statutes.

This appeal followed. Two points were presented for reversal: first, that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the charge of larceny of an auto vehicle and, second, that the trial judge erred in reviewing the appellant’s previous record prior to sentencing, reflecting his brushes with the law.

The State has filed a motion to quash, contending that the first point is not valid in that no motion for a new trial was made, citing State v. Owens, Fla.1970, 233 So.2d 389, and second, that there was no error committed by the trial judge in examining the pre-sentence report prior to sentencing, citing Cross v. State, 96 Fla. 768, 119 So. 380.

We find merit in the motion to quash but have, in an abundance of caution, reviewed the entire record on appeal. And, following such, dispense with oral argument pursuant to the provision of Rule 3.10, subd. e, Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A., and affirm the conviction and sentence here under review upon the authority of State v. Owens, supra, and County of Dade v. Baird, Fla.App.1968, 211 So.2d 609.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 So. 2d 545, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mincey-v-state-fladistctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack