Summerall v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Summerall v. State

734 So. 2d 449, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 5714, 1999 WL 270439

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 5, 1999

DocketNo. 98-2655

StatusPublished

This text of 734 So. 2d 449 (Summerall 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

Summerall v. State, 734 So. 2d 449, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 5714, 1999 WL 270439 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges his conviction for armed burglary, contending that the state’s evidence was insufficient to prove that he was armed during the commission [450]*450of the burglary. In this circumstantial evidence case, the state concedes, and we agree, that under this court’s decision in Dupree v. State, 705 So.2d 90, 93-94 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), the evidence was not inconsistent with appellant’s reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Appellant argued that he was not armed during the burglary, and we cannot find any evidence even indicating the presence of a firearm during the commission of the crime. However, there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude that appellant had committed the burglary. Therefore, we reverse the conviction and sentence for burglary with • a firearm and remand for resentencing for burglary. We affirm the conviction and sentence for possession of burglary tools.

GUNTHER, WARNER and STEVENSON, JJ„ concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges his conviction for armed burglary, contending that the state’s evidence was insufficient to prove that he was armed during the commission [450]*450of the burglary. In this circumstantial evidence case, the state concedes, and we agree, that under this court’s decision in Dupree v. State, 705 So.2d 90, 93-94 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), the evidence was not inconsistent with appellant’s reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Appellant argued that he was not armed during the burglary, and we cannot find any evidence even indicating the presence of a firearm during the commission of the crime. However, there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude that appellant had committed the burglary. Therefore, we reverse the conviction and sentence for burglary with • a firearm and remand for resentencing for burglary. We affirm the conviction and sentence for possession of burglary tools.

GUNTHER, WARNER and STEVENSON, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

734 So. 2d 449, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 5714, 1999 WL 270439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/summerall-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack