Roundtree v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Roundtree v. State

236 So. 2d 140, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6277

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 2, 1970

DocketNo. 69-960

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 236 So. 2d 140 (Roundtree 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

Roundtree v. State, 236 So. 2d 140, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6277 (Fla. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellants were informed against, charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, grand larceny. Upon trial they were found and adjudged guilty of attempt thereof, for which each was sentenced to imprisonment for five years, with credit for certain jail time served.

On this appeal therefrom the appellants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgments rendered against them. The information charged breaking and entering a building (at a given address) alleged to be the property of Miami Purveyors, Inc., a corporation. Appellants contend the latter allegation is not supported by the evidence. We find no merit in that contention. The general manager of the company testified on that point without objection. See Harper v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 169 So.2d 512. We reject also the further contention of the appellants that there was no sufficient showing by the state regarding property in the building, upon which to support a finding of intent to commit grand larceny. It was disclosed in the evidence that a wholesale meat business was conducted on the prem[141]*141ises, and that it contained merchandise of the company valued in excess of $75,000. See Dohry v. State, Fla.App.1968, 211 So.2d 603.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellants were informed against, charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, grand larceny. Upon trial they were found and adjudged guilty of attempt thereof, for which each was sentenced to imprisonment for five years, with credit for certain jail time served.

On this appeal therefrom the appellants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgments rendered against them. The information charged breaking and entering a building (at a given address) alleged to be the property of Miami Purveyors, Inc., a corporation. Appellants contend the latter allegation is not supported by the evidence. We find no merit in that contention. The general manager of the company testified on that point without objection. See Harper v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 169 So.2d 512. We reject also the further contention of the appellants that there was no sufficient showing by the state regarding property in the building, upon which to support a finding of intent to commit grand larceny. It was disclosed in the evidence that a wholesale meat business was conducted on the prem[141]*141ises, and that it contained merchandise of the company valued in excess of $75,000. See Dohry v. State, Fla.App.1968, 211 So.2d 603.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 So. 2d 140, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roundtree-v-state-fladistctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack