Owens v. State
| Decision Date | 30 September 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 2124,2124 |
| Citation | 227 So.2d 241 |
| Parties | Hubert OWENS, alias Buddy Owens, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Louis R. Bowen, Jr., Public Defender, and Peter N. Smith, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, Orlando, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles W. Musgrove, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Hubert Owens was charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony and grand larceny. Tried by jury, he was found guilty and duly adjudicated and sentenced. He appeals, saying that there was a total lack of evidence to show that the value of the property in question was $100.00 or more. The state concedes that the evidence of value was insufficient. However, the state, by way of avoidance, asserts that Owens is without standing to raise this point on appeal inasmuch as no motion for a new trial was made in the trial court. It is true that such motion was not made. However, the matter was adequately presented before the trial court and the trial court was given a clear opportunity to rule upon the sufficiency of the evidence. This was accomplished by Owens' motion for a directed verdict made at the conclusion of all of the evidence. It was presented as follows:
'The only testimony we have going to the value of the property relates to the value of more than a year; its purchase price more than a year prior to the time of the taking, alleged in this case; and therefore I would mave that at the very least the Court directs a verdict that this Defendant not be convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony or grand larceny, but only, if (sic) such lesser charges as may be appropriate.
The state cites in support of its position Gilbert v. State, 1941, 148 Fla. 293, 4 So.2d 330; Smith v. State, Fla.App.1966, 194 So.2d 310; and Jones v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 804. We also notice the latest expression from the Supreme Court of Florida in State v. Wright, Fla.1969, 224 So.2d 300. Indeed these cases do stand for the proposition that the sufficiency of evidence may not be challenged on appeal unless presented to the trial judge on motion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State, 86-1181
...was tried, the Florida Supreme Court's opinion in State v. Wright was on the books. Defendant however, relied on Owens v. State, 227 So.2d 241 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969) wherein the Fourth District held that where a defendant in a criminal case moved for a directed verdict on the ground that proof......
-
Mancini v. State, 41872
...months before the date of defendant's trial. However, defendant contends that he relied on the district court opinion in Owens v. State, 227 So.2d 241 (Fla.App.4th 1969), a decision which was entered September 30, 1969, but not rendered final by the denial of petition for rehearing until No......
-
State v. Owens
...Appeal, Fourth District. Jurisdiction is based on the conflict between the decision of the District Court of Appeal herein, reported at 227 So.2d 241, and the decision of this Court in State v. Wright, 224 So.2d 300 Respondent Owens was charged with breaking and entering with intent to comm......