Case Name: Norman RUDISEL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1969-10-21
Citations: 227 So. 2d 236
Docket Number: No. 69-121
Parties: Norman RUDISEL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and SWANN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 227
Pages: 236–237

Head Matter:
Norman RUDISEL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 69-121.
District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.
Oct. 21, 1969.
Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender, and Maurice Jay Kutner, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Earl Fair cloth, Atty.Gen., and Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Asst.Atty.Gen., for appellee.
Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and SWANN, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The appellant was charged by information with the crimes of grand larceny and breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit grand larceny. He pleaded not guilty, waived a jury, was tried, found guilty and sentenced to three years' confinement in the state penitentiary, with credit given for certain time spent in jail prior to sentencing. On this appeal therefrom by the defendant, he seeks reversal on the grounds that the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict at the close of the state's case, for insufficiency of the evidence. Appellant argues that the evidence was circumstantial and was not such as to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. On examination of the record and briefs we conclude that the contention presented by the appellant is without merit, and that the judgment has the support of substantial competent evidence, giving due consideration to the quantum of proof required by law in such case.
Affirmed.