From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Spurlock v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Sep 10, 1973
281 So. 2d 586 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973)

Summary

In Spurlock v. State, 281 So.2d 586 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973), cert. denied 286 So.2d 207 (Fla. 1973), the verdict was defective in that it failed both to state the value of the stolen goods and to allege that defendant knew that the goods were stolen. Defendant failed to object to the verdict, however, and the court held that there was "no reviewable judicial act."

Summary of this case from Kirkland v. State

Opinion

No. 72-839.

August 15, 1973. Rehearing Denied September 10, 1973.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Seminole County, Clarence T. Johnson, Jr., J.

James C. Dauksch, Jr., Orlando, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Andrew W. Lindsey, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Joel Remland, Legal Intern, Tallahassee, for appellee.


Defendant was convicted of buying, receiving and aiding in the concealment of stolen property. He was sentenced to three years and appeals the judgment and sentence.

The jury verdict failed to fix the value of the stolen goods and to allege defendant knew the goods were stolen.

The verdict was defective because it failed to set value. Alvarez v. State, Fla. 1918, 75 Fla. 286, 78 So. 272; Vaughn v. State, Fla. 1941, 147 Fla. 12, 2 So.2d 122; both cases overruled on other grounds in Tidwell v. State, Fla. 1942, 151 Fla. 333, 9 So.2d 630. As defendant concedes he failed to object below to the verdict, he failed to move for a new trial, and never attacked the verdict by a proper motion in arrest of judgment so that there is no reviewable judicial act; ergo, there is no merit to defendant's first point on appeal. Biesendorfer v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 227 So.2d 322.

There is merit to defendant's second appellate point, which challenges the failure of the judgment to recite knowledge on defendant's part. We reverse and remand on authority of Biesendorfer v. State, supra; Eagle v. State, Fla.App. 1972, 270 So.2d 468; Myers v. State, Fla. 1934, 115 Fla. 627, 155 So. 797, with directions to the trial court to enter a proper judgment.

There is no merit to defendant's third point.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.

OWEN, C.J., and WALDEN and CROSS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Spurlock v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Sep 10, 1973
281 So. 2d 586 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973)

In Spurlock v. State, 281 So.2d 586 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973), cert. denied 286 So.2d 207 (Fla. 1973), the verdict was defective in that it failed both to state the value of the stolen goods and to allege that defendant knew that the goods were stolen. Defendant failed to object to the verdict, however, and the court held that there was "no reviewable judicial act."

Summary of this case from Kirkland v. State
Case details for

Spurlock v. State

Case Details

Full title:JIMMY P. SPURLOCK, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Sep 10, 1973

Citations

281 So. 2d 586 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973)

Citing Cases

Windhurst v. State

We note however that the final judgment adjudicating appellant guilty of the crime of receiving stolen…

Williams v. State

ROBERTS, Justice. We have for review by petition for writ of certiorari granted the decision of the District…