IRESON CONLEY MEAD, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
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.
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction for wantonly or maliciously shooting into an occupied building.
The appellant was convicted of shooting a deadly missile into an occupied public building. He claimed he was acting in self-defense and lacked the req…
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.
The appellant, Mead, was tried without a jury and found guilty of unlawfully, feloniously and wantonly shooting a deadly missile into a used or occupied public building in violation of Fla.Stat. § 790.19, F.S.A.
He claims reversible error was committed because there was insufficient evidence submitted to support the guilty verdict. Although there is evidence to the contrary, Mead claims he was firing a shotgun in self-defense at the intended victim, who had just disarmed Mead of a pistol which he had been carrying, and that therefore he lacked the requisite intent under Golden v. State, Fla.App. 1960, 120 So.2d 651.
In Golden the bullets were shot at a man running into a house and were not deliberately fired into the building, as was the case here. Here there was evidence that the appellant, while standing outside the building, deliberately fired two shots from a sawed off shotgun through a plate glass window into a bar which was occupied with several people.
The conflicting evidence was resolved adversely to the defendant by the trial judge. See Eizenman v. State, Fla.App. 1961, 132 So.2d 763. There was sufficient evidence to sustain the finding of the trial judge that Mead’s shooting into the building was done wantonly or maliciously and the judgment of conviction is therefore
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Delaughter v. State, 341 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…building he was shooting at a person and, therefore, could not be guilty under the authority of Golden v. State, 120 So. 2d 651 (Fla.1st D.C.A. 1960). After a review of the record, this case is affirmed on the following authorities: Mead v. State, 214 So. 2d 514 (Fla.3rd D.C.A. 1968); Arline v. State, 303 So. 2d 37 (Fla.1st D.C.A. 1974); Morgan v. State, 303 So. 2d 393 (Fla.2d D.C.A. 1974). In the case of Golden v. State, supra, the defendant was in hot pursuit of his victim and fired at him as he ran into…
-
Ireson Conley Mead, Jr. v. State, 222 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 1969)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 214 So. 2d 514.…
-
C.H. v. State, 460 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Skinner v. State, 450 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Delaughter v. State, 341 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Mead v. State, 214 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), cert. denied, 222 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 1969); § 790.19, Fla.Stat. (1981).…
Authorities Cited
- Eizenman v. State, 132 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Luke v. Morrison Food Servs., Inc., 120 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)