Polero v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Polero v. State

390 So. 2d 102, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 18082

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 4, 1980

DocketNo. 79-2048

StatusPublished

This text of 390 So. 2d 102 (Polero 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

Polero v. State, 390 So. 2d 102, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 18082 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was charged by information with five counts of forgery and five counts of grand theft, second degree. He was found guilty by the jury of forgery on all counts and not guilty of grand theft on all counts.

Appellant was sentenced to thirty months in the state penitentiary on each of the forgery counts, each to run concurrently.

In this appeal appellant contends that the trial court erred in (1) failing to grant a judgment of acquittal; (2) failing to grant appellant’s Motion to suppress evidence derived from electronic surveillance; and (3) in ruling that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict of conviction.

We have carefully considered appellant’s contentions in light of the record, briefs and argument of counsel, and have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated. Rodriquez v. State, 297 So.2d 15 (Fla.1974); Franco v. State, 376 So.2d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Hudson v. State, 368 So.2d 899 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied 378 So.2d 345 (Fla.1979); State v. Buffa, 347 So.2d 688 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Jones v. State, 343 So.2d 921 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied 352 So.2d 172 (Fla.1977); Abbott v. State, 334 So.2d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. denied 345 So.2d 420 (Fla.) cert. denied 431 U.S. 968, 97 S.Ct. 2926, 53 L.Ed.2d 1064 (1977); Marshall v. State, 321 So.2d 114 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).

Therefore, the judgment and sentence are affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was charged by information with five counts of forgery and five counts of grand theft, second degree. He was found guilty by the jury of forgery on all counts and not guilty of grand theft on all counts.

Appellant was sentenced to thirty months in the state penitentiary on each of the forgery counts, each to run concurrently.

In this appeal appellant contends that the trial court erred in (1) failing to grant a judgment of acquittal; (2) failing to grant appellant’s Motion to suppress evidence derived from electronic surveillance; and (3) in ruling that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict of conviction.

We have carefully considered appellant’s contentions in light of the record, briefs and argument of counsel, and have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated. Rodriquez v. State, 297 So.2d 15 (Fla.1974); Franco v. State, 376 So.2d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Hudson v. State, 368 So.2d 899 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied 378 So.2d 345 (Fla.1979); State v. Buffa, 347 So.2d 688 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Jones v. State, 343 So.2d 921 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied 352 So.2d 172 (Fla.1977); Abbott v. State, 334 So.2d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. denied 345 So.2d 420 (Fla.) cert. denied 431 U.S. 968, 97 S.Ct. 2926, 53 L.Ed.2d 1064 (1977); Marshall v. State, 321 So.2d 114 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).

Therefore, the judgment and sentence are affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

390 So. 2d 102, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 18082, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/polero-v-state-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack