Peavy v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Peavy v. State

350 So. 2d 1152

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 26, 1977·No. No. EE-471·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

SMITH, Judge.

A conviction for auto theft. Although the trial court charged the jury that each material allegation of the information must be proved, and that those allegations included the defendant’s “intent to permanently deprive or defraud the true owner of the property of the use and benefit thereof,” the court did not repeat “permanently” when defining larceny. There was no objection. There was no fundamental error. Humphries v. State, 320 So.2d 843 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), cert, den., 333 So.2d 463 (Fla. 1976).

AFFIRMED.'

BOYER, Acting C. J., and MILLS, J., concur.

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

SMITH, Judge.

A conviction for auto theft. Although the trial court charged the jury that each material allegation of the information must be proved, and that those allegations included the defendant’s “intent to permanently deprive or defraud the true owner of the property of the use and benefit thereof,” the court did not repeat “permanently” when defining larceny. There was no objection. There was no fundamental error. Humphries v. State, 320 So.2d 843 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), cert, den., 333 So.2d 463 (Fla. 1976).

AFFIRMED.'

BOYER, Acting C. J., and MILLS, J., concur.

Peavy v. State, 350 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

350 So. 2d 1152 (Peavy v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related