Shuler v. State

213 So. 2d 312, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5123
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 13, 1968·No. Nos. 67-1072, 67-1073·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

By these consolidated appeals the appellant, defendant in the criminal court of record, seeks review of non-jury convictions finding him guilty of larceny of an automobile and receiving stolen property. The principle attacked on both convictions is insufficiency of evidence to support same.

Resolving all conflicts in support of the judgment of conviction and reasonable inferences therefrom [Crum v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 24; Walden v. State, Fla.App.1966, 191 So.2d 68; Hennessy v. State, Fla.App.1967, 198 So.2d 37] we find sufficient competent evidence to support both convictions, under the authority of MacDonald v. State, 56 Fla. 74, 47 So. 485; Kemp v. State, 146 Fla. 101, 200 So. 368; Borghese v. State, Fla.App.1963, 158 So.2d 785; Shaw v. State, Fla.App.1968, 209 So.2d 477, and do hereby affirm.

Affirmed.

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

Shuler v. State, 213 So. 2d 312, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5123 (Fla. Ct. App. 1968).

213 So. 2d 312 (Shuler v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Meyers v. State
303 So. 2d 371 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1974)
Nettle v. State
291 So. 2d 20 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1974)
Starling v. State
263 So. 2d 645 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1972)
Dreger v. State
228 So. 2d 431 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1969)