Hardrick v. State, 73--32
| Decision Date | 19 April 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 73--32,73--32 |
| Citation | 293 So.2d 135 |
| Parties | Otis Lee HARDRICK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James A. Gardner, Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard C. Booth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Appellant Hardrick was convicted of breaking and entering a telephone booth with intent to commit a felony, to wit: grand larceny, and grand larceny. The trial judge withheld adjudication of guilt and imposition of sentence, and placed Hardrick on probation for a term of five years. Hardrick did not appeal the order granting probation.
Some months after his conviction, Hardrick was charged with violating the terms of his probation. Hardick pled guilty to the charge, probation was revoked and he was sentenced to 15 years for breaking and entering and to a concurrent sentence of five years for grand larceny. Hardrick appealed.
Hardrick contends that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of the charge of breaking and entering, relying on Jackson v. State, Fla.App.2d 1972, 259 So.2d 739, and State v. Jackson, Fla.1973, 281 So.2d 353. In State v. Jackson the Supreme Court held that the convictions of Hardrick's co-defendants Jackson and Fisher for breaking and entering a telephone booth with intent to commit a felony could not be sustained because the implied consent to enter must be negated. The opinion of this court in Jackson was modified and the reversal of convictions for breaking and entering was affirmed since non-consent to enter was not established by the evidence.
Hardrick also contends that the evidence as to the value of the property taken was not sufficient to convict him of the charge of grand larceny.
Hardrick is thereby attempting to attack proceedings prior to the order of probation. F.S. Section 924.06 F.S.A. provides that an appeal of an order revoking probation may review only proceedings after the order of probation. The question of sufficiency of the evidence could or should have been raised by direct appeal from the order placing Hardrick on probation. McGriff v. State, Fla.App.3d 1972, 259 So.2d 508. See Delaney v. State, Fla.1966, 190 So.2d 578; Burgess v. State, Fla.App.1967, 194 So.2d 698.
Hardrick next contends that the lower court illegally imposed two separate concurrent sentences for offenses which were shown by the record to be facets of the same...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Matthews v. State
...he could have either refused probation or appealed the order and its contents. Section 924.06(2), F.S. 1973; Hardrick v. State, 293 So.2d 135 (2d D.C.A.Fla.1974).3 Id. at In a more recent case, Mathis v. State, 683 So.2d 634 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), this court, without addressing the foregoing ......
-
Buckbee v. State
...grievance, he could have either refused probation or appealed the order and its contents. Section 924.06(2) F.S.1973; Hardrick v. State, 293 So.2d 135 (2d DCA Fla.1974). Accord: King v. State, 373 So.2d 78 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Stuart v. State, 353 So.2d 165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); see Bouie v. S......
-
Page v. State
...supplied). Brown v. State, 305 So.2d 309 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Stuart v. State, 353 So.2d 165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Hardrick v. State, 293 So.2d 135 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974), Rev'd on other grounds, 313 So.2d 695 (Fla.1975). The state further contends that this issue was not presented to the trial c......
-
Deaver v. State, 75--248
...An appeal of an order revoking probation may review only proceedings after the order of probation. Sec. 924.06(2) F.S.; Hardrick v. State, Fla.App.1974, 293 So.2d 135. At any rate, the error complained of was harmless. Williams v. State, Fla.1975, 316 So.2d 267; Hall v. State, Fla.1975, 316......