Case ID: fla_88/html/0157-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Reuben Turner, Plaintiff in Error, v. The State of Florida, Defendant in Error.
    
    Division B.
    Opinion Filed July 26, 1924.
    Petition for Rehearing Denied October 27, 1924.
    Where two defendants are jointly indicted in two counts, one count being for robbery and the other for grand larceny, and after severance granted, on the trial of one of the accused, the State asked for a conviction only on the count charging robbery and the jury find “the defendant guilty,” the charge and verdict constitute a sufficient predicate for the judgment of conviction of robbery, even though the property the subject of the robbery was stated in figures hs “$4,300” and not in letters; and there being substantial legal evidence to sustain the verdict and no harmful errors of procedure or of law being made to appear, the judgment will be affirmed.
    A Writ oí Error to the Circuit Court for Suwannee County, M. F. Horne, Judge.
    Affirmed.
    
      John F. Harrell, for Plaintiff in Error;
    
      Rivers Buford, Attorney General, and J. B. Gaines, Assistant, for the State.
   Pee Curiam.

r-Plaintiff in Error and two others were jointly indicted in two counts, one for robbery, the other for grand larceny. All pleaded not guilty. A severance was granted and upon the trial of Reuben Turner the jury found “the defendant guilty.”

In an order denying a motion in arrest of judgment the court stated: “it appearing to the court that the defendant Reuben Turner alone was upon trial and that a verdict for the State and against the defendant Reuben Turner was only asked by the State Attorney in his argument upon the first count of the indictment, and the State Attorney announcing to the court that he will pray judgment upon the first count of the indictment; it is upon authority of Poyner v. State, ordered that this motion be overruled and denied.”

The value of the property the subject of the robbery was sufficiently stated in figures as “$4300.” and not in letters. As only the plaintiff in error was on trial after a severance and conviction was asked only on the first count, the verdict is sufficiently definite as a predicate for the judgment of conviction and sentence for robbery rendered by the court.

There is substantial legal evidence to sustain the verdict. No material or harmful errors of procedure or of law are made to appear.

Affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and West and Terrell, J. J., concur.

Taylor, C. J., and Ellis and Browne, J. J., concur in the opinion.