Stanley v. State

222 So. 2d 440, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5820
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Stanley v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 4826
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 13, 1969·No. No. 68-812·Published

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Anthony Stanley, was charged by information with the offense of grand larceny. He pleaded not guilty and waived jury trial. The trial judge found him guilty and imposed a sentence upon him of three years in the state penitentiary.

Appellant urges reversal on the ground of insufficiency of evidence to support his conviction. He specifically complains that the state failed to establish a prima facie case of grand larceny because there was insufficient proof of ownership of the property. It is further contended that the state failed to establish a prima facie case of grand larceny because there is no evidence in the record which shows that the defendant took the property or acted in concert with the person who took the property.

We have carefully examined the record, considered the briefs and arguments of counsel and have concluded that appellant’s contentions are without substantial merit. Williams v. Smelt, Fla.1955, 83 So.2d 1; Gibson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 208 So.2d 128; Crum v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 24.

Affirmed.

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

Stanley v. State, 222 So. 2d 440, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5820 (Fla. Ct. App. 1969).

222 So. 2d 440 (Stanley v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Borrego v. State
62 So. 2d 43 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1952)
Crum v. State
172 So. 2d 24 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1965)
Williams v. Smelt
83 So. 2d 1 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1955)
Gibson v. State
208 So. 2d 128 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1968)