State v. Owens
| Decision Date | 25 March 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 39152,39152 |
| Citation | 233 So.2d 389 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Hubert OWENS, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Louis R. Bowen, Jr., Public Defender, and Edward G. Helvenston, Asst. Public Defender, for respondent.
This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of 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 (Fla.1969).
Respondent Owens was charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony and grand larceny. He was tried by a jury, found guilty and sentenced to 15 years for breaking and entering and five years for grand larceny, the latter sentence to run concurrently with the former.
On appeal to the District Court, Owens contended that there was a total lack of evidence to show that the value of the property in question was $100 or more. The State conceded that the evidence of value was insufficient but asserted that Owens had no standing to raise this point on appeal inasmuch as no motion for new trial was made in the trial court. The position of the State is difficult to understand since the uncontradicted testimony of the owner was that the property stolen, consisting of two .22 caliber pistols, a leather holster, and a wrist watch, had a value of $267.
The District Court reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial holding that, although there was no motion made for new trial, the matter had been adequately presented to the trial court on motion for a directed verdict made at the conclusion of all the evidence. The District Court distinguished State v. Wright, supra, and other cases holding that the sufficiency of the evidence may not be challenged on appeal unless presented to the trial court on a motion for new trial, stating: 1
We understand the natural reluctance of the District Court to foreclose respondent's opportunity to question the sufficiency of the evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Santiago v. State
...for new trial was a necessary prerequisite to review on appeal the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction. See State v. Owens, 233 So.2d 389 (Fla.1970) (holding that a motion for new trial based on alleged insufficiency of the evidence must be filed as a prerequisite to review ......
-
Williams v. State, 86-1181
...for a new trial did not preclude the defendant from raising the issue on appeal. Owens was reversed by the supreme court in State v. Owens, 233 So.2d 389 (Fla.1970) and held (as did Wright ) that a motion for new trial based on alleged insufficiency of the evidence must be filed as a prereq......
-
Norris v. State
...v. State, Fla.1965, 174 So.2d 544; Melkun v. State, Second District Court of Appeal, 244 So.2d 145, filed February 17, 1971; State v. Owens, Fla.1970, 233 So.2d 389; State v. Contreras, Fla.1969, 227 So.2d 306; State v. Kahler, Fla.1970, 232 So.2d 166; Warren v. State, Fla.App.1969, 227 So.......
-
State v. Barber
...First District Court of Appeal in this cause, reported at 286 So.2d 23 (1973); Mancini v. State, 273 So.2d 371 (Fla.1973); State v. Owens, 233 So.2d 389 (Fla.1970); State v. Wright, 224 So.2d 300 (Fla.1969); Chester v. State, 276 So.2d 76 (Fla.App.2d Respondents were convicted of two counts......