Wright v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wright v. State

182 So. 2d 273

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 1, 1966

DocketNo. 65-431

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 182 So. 2d 273 (Wright 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

Wright v. State, 182 So. 2d 273 (Fla. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

BARKDULL, Judge.

By this appeal, the appellant seeks review of an adverse judgment, conviction and sentence for armed robbery. The only question preserved for review is the sufficiency of the'evidence.

The State relies on circumstantial evidence. There was no positive identification made, and we find from the record failure on the part of the State to make a prima facie case of robbery against the defendant, in that it did not meet the tests set forth in Hall v. State, 90 Fla. 719, 107 So. 246; Frank v. State, 121 Fla. 53, 163 So. 223; Dedge v. State, 128 Fla. 343, 174 So. 725; Rivers v. State, 140 Fla. 487, 192 So. 190; Hubbard v. State, Fla.1954, 73 So.2d 850; Davis v. State, Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 629. The evidence failed to establish beyond and to the exclusion of reasonable doubt that the appellant, and no one else, was criminally responsible for the act charged.

Therefore the judgment, conviction, and sentence here under review be and is hereby reversed, with directions to discharge the appellant from the cause.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

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

BARKDULL, Judge.

By this appeal, the appellant seeks review of an adverse judgment, conviction and sentence for armed robbery. The only question preserved for review is the sufficiency of the'evidence.

The State relies on circumstantial evidence. There was no positive identification made, and we find from the record failure on the part of the State to make a prima facie case of robbery against the defendant, in that it did not meet the tests set forth in Hall v. State, 90 Fla. 719, 107 So. 246; Frank v. State, 121 Fla. 53, 163 So. 223; Dedge v. State, 128 Fla. 343, 174 So. 725; Rivers v. State, 140 Fla. 487, 192 So. 190; Hubbard v. State, Fla.1954, 73 So.2d 850; Davis v. State, Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 629. The evidence failed to establish beyond and to the exclusion of reasonable doubt that the appellant, and no one else, was criminally responsible for the act charged.

Therefore the judgment, conviction, and sentence here under review be and is hereby reversed, with directions to discharge the appellant from the cause.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 So. 2d 273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-state-fladistctapp-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack