Case ID: so2d_215/html/0496-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James M. HALL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 68-110.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.
    Nov. 12, 1968.
    Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender, and Herbert M. Klein, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
    Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Melvin Grossman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
    Before HENDRY and SWANN, JJ., and WHITE, JOSEPH S., Associate Judge.
   PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of his conviction of the crime of robbery.

It is the appellant’s contention that the state failed to establish a prima facie case of robbery against him because the eye witness did not satisfactorily establish appellant’s identity as a participant in the crime.

We have carefully considered this contention in the light of the evidence appearing in the record and the controlling principles of law; we have concluded that appellant’s contention is without merit. In our opinion there is substantial competent evidence to support the conviction. Crum v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 24; Sharon v. State, Fla.App.1963, 156 So.2d 677.

Affirmed.