McCormick v. State
| Decision Date | 17 December 1943 |
| Citation | 16 So.2d 49,153 Fla. 838 |
| Parties | McCORMICK v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 13, 1944.
Appeal from Court of Record, Escambia County; Ernest E Mason, judge.
Caldwell & Wiggington and John T. Wiggington, all of Milton, for appellant.
J. Tom Watson, Atty. Gen., John C. Wynn, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Bourke Floyd, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant waived a jury and was tried before the court on an information charging an aggravated assault. He was found guilty as charged and was sentenced to serve four months in the county jail at hard labor.
The evidence discloses that appellant was purchasing a stock of merchandise from one Philip Goldenburg and an argument arose between them. The State's evidence showed that appellant struck Goldenburg a severe blow on the face and called for someone to hand him his gun and that he would kill the latter. The two were separated and the difficulty ended. There was no testimony that appellant was armed with any weapon although appellant had a shotgun only a few feet away.
An aggravated assault is an assault with a deadly weapon without a premeditated design to kill the person assaulted. See Section 784.04, Florida Statutes 1941, F.S.A. It is readily apparent that the evidence was wholly insufficient to sustain the conviction as charged; to wit, aggravated assault.
The motion for a new trial questioned the finding of guilt and was denied July, 1943. On October 4, 1943, there was filed in this court a certified copy of an order by the trial judge dated October 2, 1943, whereby the trial judge attempted, by a nunc pro tunc order, to correct his minutes to show that appellant was in truth and fact found guilty of an assault and battery, however the sentence was not altered. The latter order recites that notice was given although the record does not so show. After this appeal was perfected the order was entered without the knowledge or consent of this court. When the trial judge found the defendant guilty, he was acting in the same capacity as jury and his finding was equivalent to a jury verdict. The imposition of sentence was the act of the court based upon the finding of guilt. The trial court was without power to alter his records by way of correcting his finding after the elapse of time and the lodging of appellant's appeal in this court.
It is true that the court might, under the evidence, have found ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wright v. State
...determine the accuracy of the plea, thereby avoiding a mistake."1 Wright v. State, 348 So.2d 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).2 McCormick v. State, 153 Fla. 838, 16 So.2d 49 (1944). ...
-
Goswick v. State
...included offense under the charge of aggravated assault. The appellant urges that the language of the Supreme Court in McCormick v. State, 153 Fla. 838, 16 So.2d 49 1 establishes that assault and battery is a lesser included offense of aggravated assault. He then reasons that it was the dut......
-
Fulton v. Poston Bridge & Iron, Inc., 59-632
...v. Lackey, 186 N.C. 398, 119 S.E. 763; 4 A C.J.S. Appeal and Error § 617. See Banning v. Brown, 73 Fla. 54, 74 So. 23; McCormick v. State, 153 Fla. 838, 16 So.2d 49. Applicable here is the statement contained in the section of Corpus Juris Secundum cited above, to the following 'While the a......
-
Goswick v. State
...review. The petitioner contends that the decision of the Court of Appeal conflicts with a prior decision of this Court in McCormick v. State, 153 Fla. 838, 16 So.2d 49. The respondent contends that there is no conflict and, therefore, this Court is without jurisdiction to The respondent arg......