Smith v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Smith v. State

217 So. 2d 337, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 6340

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 7, 1969

DocketNo. 68-613

StatusPublished

This text of 217 So. 2d 337 (Smith 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

Smith v. State, 217 So. 2d 337, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 6340 (Fla. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was tried by the court, convicted of larceny of an automobile, and sentenced to two years in prison.

Smith contends that except for his confession, there is insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction. He relies on Hodges v. State, Fla.1965, 176 So.2d 91, in which the Supreme Court of Florida held that a larceny conviction could not be sustained [338]*338if “the fact that the crime of larceny had occurred could not be established by the other evidence introduced without the aid of the admission [of the defendant-appellant].” But the foregoing rule is of no avail to the appellant because the state’s evidence other than the confession established a prima facie case of larceny against the appellant and also proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed larceny. Therefore, the judgment of conviction must be affirmed. See Hodges v. State, above. Cf. Ortiz v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 57.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was tried by the court, convicted of larceny of an automobile, and sentenced to two years in prison.

Smith contends that except for his confession, there is insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction. He relies on Hodges v. State, Fla.1965, 176 So.2d 91, in which the Supreme Court of Florida held that a larceny conviction could not be sustained [338]*338if “the fact that the crime of larceny had occurred could not be established by the other evidence introduced without the aid of the admission [of the defendant-appellant].” But the foregoing rule is of no avail to the appellant because the state’s evidence other than the confession established a prima facie case of larceny against the appellant and also proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed larceny. Therefore, the judgment of conviction must be affirmed. See Hodges v. State, above. Cf. Ortiz v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 57.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

217 So. 2d 337, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 6340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-state-fladistctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack