Case Name: Herman BARWICKS, Alias Johnny Frank, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1955-07-06
Citations: 82 So. 2d 356
Docket Number: 
Parties: Herman BARWICKS, Alias Johnny Frank, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: DREW, C. J., and TERRELL, THOMAS, SEBRING, HOBSON and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 82
Pages: 356–359

Head Matter:
Herman BARWICKS, Alias Johnny Frank, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Supreme Court of Florida, en Banc.
July 6, 1955.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 14, 1955.
Ray Sandstrom and Olin W. Cheshire, Lakeland, for appellant.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. = Gen., John S. Lloyd and Moie J. L. Tendrich,;Asst. Attys. Gen., .for appellee. *

Opinion:
THORNAL, Justice.
For the alleged first degree murder of Beatrice McNeal, Herman Barwicks, alias Johnny Frank, was tried in the Circuit Court of Folk County and was. convicted without recommendation of mercy. He was sentenced to death. On the judgment and sentence, after denial of a motion for new trial, Barwicks appeals, assigning many alleged errors.
In view of the seriousness of the charge and the severity of the penalty, the record has been thoroughly combed" and studied in the light" of the alleged errors assigned. In view of the "conclusion which we' have reached, w.e find that it would serve no useful purpose to review and pass upon each of the alleged errors. The appellant was represented in the Court below by able and aggressive counsel. An experienced Judge extended to him every assurance of a fair trial provided by the law and there is ample evidence to sustain the verdict of the jury..
We have examined and considered the record in this case in the light of briefs filed and have also, pursuant to sub-paragraph 2 of Section 924.32, Florida Statutes, 1953, F.S.A., reviewed the evidence to. determine if the interests of justice require a new trial, with the result that we find no reversible error is made to appear and the evidence does not reveal that the ends of justice require a new trial to be-awarded.
Affirmed.
DREW, C. J., and TERRELL, THOMAS, SEBRING, HOBSON and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.