Peavy v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Peavy v. State

350 So. 2d 1152

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 26, 1977

DocketNo. EE-471

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 350 So. 2d 1152 (Peavy 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

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

350 So. 2d 1152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peavy-v-state-fladistctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack