SINCLAIR JOHNSON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; SAMUEL JAMES JONES, APPELLANT, V. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; WALTER JACKSON, APPELLANT, V. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
This case consolidated appeals from three defendants convicted of attempted robbery. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence to support the trial court's judgment despite the victim's disappearance.
Yes, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for attempted robbery.
“The question presented for determination on appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.”
This quote states the central legal question the appellate court was asked to decide.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThree defendants were observed grappling with a fourth man outside a nightclub at 4:30 A.M. The victim stated, "They got my wallet and watch," before …
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 Attempted Robbery cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants were informed against, charged with the crime of robbery. They were tried together without a jury, and found and adjudged guilty of attempted robbery. Their appeals were consolidated for briefing and argument. The question presented for determination on appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
The record discloses that three off-duty private detectives, upon departing from a night club at 4:30 A.M., saw the three defendants grappling with a fourth man. The victim blurted out: “They got my wallet and watch.” He subsequently disappeared. Two of the defendants were observed holding the victim while the third was reaching into the victim’s pocket or trying to do so. The defendants fled, but were overtaken and arrested by the detectives. The trial judge was of the view that robbery was not proved but correctly found the defendants guilty of attempted robbery. Upon examination of the record and briefs we conclude that the judgment appealed from had adequate support in the evidence.
No reversible error having been made to appear the judgments in the above styled and numbered appeals are affirmed.
Affirmed.