LUNZO N. MARSHALL, 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.
The court held that the evidence of ownership was sufficient to sustain the larceny conviction and that the revocation of probation was proper.
The defendant was charged with larceny of an automobile, convicted, and placed on probation. Subsequently, his probation was revoked, and he was sente…
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 Proof Of Ownership cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On July 23, 1969 defendant-appellant was charged by information with larceny of an automobile. A non-jury trial was held on June 25, 1970 at the conclusion of which defendant was adjudicated guilty and placed on two years probation. On May 22, 1973 a revocation of probation hearing was conducted and the defendant was found guilty of violating his probation and ultimately sentenced to one year in the Dade County Jail. By writ of habeas corpus, defendant-appellant takes this delayed appeal.
Appellant first contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal where the prosecution’s proof of ownership was insufficient and therefore the evidence legally was insufficient to sustain a conviction. We disagree.
Although the proof of ownership of the property in another must be sufficient, general evidence of ownership of property is as sufficient in criminal as in civil cases. See 20 Fla.Jur. Larceny § 74 (1958). A close examination of the record reveals that one of the police officers testified to the fact that the subject automobile was turned over to the owner, Mr. Hill, who produced title thereto in his name. Thus, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence of ownership and therefore we affirm the judgment of conviction.
Appellant secondly argues that the trial court erred in revoking his probation.
We find the trial court correct in revoking the probation as the defendant-appellant presented no evidence that he had complied with the terms of probation.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and revocation of probation herein appealed are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kord v. State, 361 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…materially violated the terms of his probation; and to show that the trial court acted within the bounds of its discretion. Bernhardt v. State, 288 So. 2d 490, 501 (Fla.1974); Randolph v. State, 292 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Marshall v. State, 294 So. 2d 713, 714 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Adams v. State, 330 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). The second point is that the trial court erred in sentencing Kord to five years where it previously modified the conditions of probation to provide for a two year term of…