Stanley v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stanley v. State

222 So. 2d 440, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5820

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 13, 1969

DocketNo. 68-812

StatusPublished

This text of 222 So. 2d 440 (Stanley 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 So. 2d 440, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanley-v-state-fladistctapp-1969.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack