REUBEN LAMPKIN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for armed robbery. The court found the information was not defective and the sentence was proper, despite a procedural issue with the bill of exceptions.
The court held that the information was not defective and the sentence was proper because the counts ran concurrently. The court also found that the bill of exceptions was not properly presented and lacked the necessary evidence to review the alleged prosecutorial misconduct.
“The information is not defective and the sentence on each count runs concurrently.”
Establishes the court's finding on the sufficiency of the charges and the validity of the sentence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceReuben Lampkin was convicted on three counts of armed robbery. The trial court sentenced him to 4 years in state prison on each count, to run concurre…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Concurrent Sentences cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
The plaintiff in error was convicted in the Court of Record of Escambia County on an information containing three counts, charging him with rob bery while being armed with a dangerous weapon and with the intent if resisted, to kill and maim the persons robbed. There was a verdict of guilty on all the counts. The judgment of the court as shown by an amendment to the record filed here about a month and a half after the return day of the writ is as follows: “This cause came on this day for sentence, and the defendant being present in court: It is therefore considered by the court that the said defendant do be sent to the State Prison at hard labor for a period of 4 years on each of the 4 counts.”
The information is not defective and the sentence on each count runs concurrently. So it is unnecessary to send the case back for a correction in the sentence.
The only assignments of error are based upon matters' in pais which could be exhibited only by a bill of exceptions. The document which purports to be a bill of exceptions is not made up in the form prescribed by the rule, and there is doubt whether the name of the judge which appears to have been affixed to the document was intended to be affixed merely to the order overruling the motion for a new trial and order granting time within which to present a bill of exceptions.
However, treating the document as a bill of exceptions, it contains none of the evidence adduced at the trial, therefore nothing to show that the remarks of the Solicitor were improper as not being reasonable deductions from the evidence. The document does not show any ruling by the court on the defendant’s “exception.” From anything appearing to the contrary, the court corrected the error by appropriate instructions if error was committed. We cannot assume that the court failed to perform its duty. See Young v. State, decided this term. The judgment of the court is affirmed.
All concur, except Cockrell, J., absent on account of sickness.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rowe v. State, 87 Fla. 17 (Fla. 1924)…the State’s counsel in commenting, in violation of the statute upon the failure of the defendants to testify, was cured. In support of this proposition, there are cited the cases of Young v. State, 70 Fla. 211, 70 South. Rep. 19; Lampkin v. State ,70 Fla. 448, 70 South. Rep. 440; Landrum v. State, 79 Fla. 189, 84 South. Rep. 535. These cases are not applicable to the matter under consideration because they relate to alleged improper remarks' by counsel, other than a violation of this statute. The same i…
-
Cassie Williams v. State, 73 Fla. 1198 (Fla. 1917)…t improper. The bullet was shown to be of a calibre carried by the pistol which belonged to the defendant and had been recently shot, and the evidence tended to show that the defendant fired the shots which killed the deceased. See Lampkin v. State, 70 Fla. 448, 70 South. Rep. 440; Young v. State, 70 Fla. 211, 70 South. Rep. 19. The court gave the following charge, of which the defendant’s counsel complains: “Where the evidence, however, even if entirely circumstantial, is sufficient to satisfy the jurors…
-
Hysler v. State, 85 Fla. 153 (Fla. 1923)…een made in his argument to the jury are urged as reversible error, but the record discloses no exception to either of these. The point therefore cannot be considered by this court. Graham v. State, 72 Fla. 510, 73 South. Rep. 594; Lampkin v. State, 70 Fla. 448, 70 South. Rep. 440; Daly v. State, 67 Fla. 1, 64 South Rep. 358; Smith v. State, 65 Fla. 56, 61 South. Rep. 120. Rulings of the trial court, made grounds of the motion for new trial, sustaining objections to questions propounded by counsel for def…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence