Case Name: Lee Charles RUSHING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee; John Henry HIGHTOWER, alias John Henry Stubbs, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee; William GRIFFIN, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1969-02-12
Citations: 218 So. 2d 514
Docket Number: Nos. 1865-1867
Parties: Lee Charles RUSHING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. John Henry HIGHTOWER, alias John Henry Stubbs, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. William GRIFFIN, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: WALDEN, C. J., and CROSS and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 218
Pages: 514–515

Head Matter:
Lee Charles RUSHING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. John Henry HIGHTOWER, alias John Henry Stubbs, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. William GRIFFIN, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Nos. 1865-1867.
District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.
Feb. 12, 1969.
Louis R. Bowen, Jr., Public Defender, and Edward G. Helvenston, Asst. Public Defender, Orlando, for appellants.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles W. Musgrove, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Defendants William Griffin, Jr., John Henry Hightower and Lee Charles Rushing were each convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny and grand larceny. They urge that reversal is required because they were jointly represented by a single appointed attorney.
At trial defendants did not object to joint representation, and their appellate presentation has failed to demon strate any resulting prejudice. Since joint representation alone does not provide ground for reversal, defendants' contention must fail. State v. Youngblood, Fla., 217 So.2d 98, opinion filed December 17, 1968, and Belton v. State, Fla., 217 So.2d 97, opinion filed December 17, 1968.
Defendants' remaining allegation, that the state did not meet its burden of showing the value of the stolen property to be $100.00 or more at the time of the theft, is not supported by the record. Accordingly, the judgments and sentences appealed from are
Affirmed.
WALDEN, C. J., and CROSS and McCAIN, JJ., concur.