Robinson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Robinson v. State

222 So. 2d 439, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5818

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 13, 1969

DocketNo. 68-944

StatusPublished

This text of 222 So. 2d 439 (Robinson 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

Robinson v. State, 222 So. 2d 439, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5818 (Fla. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Charlie J. Robinson, was convicted of the offense of entering without breaking a store building with intent to commit a misdemeanor, to-wit: petit lar-eny. He was sentenced to one year in the Division of Corrections of the State of Florida.

It is appellant’s contention that the trial court erred in finding him guilty because the evidence did not establish his identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

We must reject appellant’s contention. This court does not sit as a second trier of facts. Williams v. Smelt, Fla.1955, 83 So.2d 1. The issue of identity was one of fact to be determined by the trial judge, before whom the case was tried without a jury. It is our function to determine whether the record contains sufficient competent substantial evidence which, if believed, would support the verdict. We [440]*440have concluded that the trial court’s finding as to the defendant’s identity and guilt are supported by sufficient, competent and substantial evidence. Gibson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 208 So.2d 128.

No reversible error appearing, the judgment and sentence appealed are affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Charlie J. Robinson, was convicted of the offense of entering without breaking a store building with intent to commit a misdemeanor, to-wit: petit lar-eny. He was sentenced to one year in the Division of Corrections of the State of Florida.

It is appellant’s contention that the trial court erred in finding him guilty because the evidence did not establish his identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

We must reject appellant’s contention. This court does not sit as a second trier of facts. Williams v. Smelt, Fla.1955, 83 So.2d 1. The issue of identity was one of fact to be determined by the trial judge, before whom the case was tried without a jury. It is our function to determine whether the record contains sufficient competent substantial evidence which, if believed, would support the verdict. We [440]*440have concluded that the trial court’s finding as to the defendant’s identity and guilt are supported by sufficient, competent and substantial evidence. Gibson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 208 So.2d 128.

No reversible error appearing, the judgment and sentence appealed are affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 So. 2d 439, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5818, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-state-fladistctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack