TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Sheffield v. State

Sheffield v. State, 73 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1954)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Florida · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 2, 1954
Judges
Drew, Hobson, Mathews, Roberts, Sebring, Terrell, Thomas
Citations
73 So. 2d 651954 Fla. LEXIS 1499

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

PER CURIAM.

We have examined and considered the record in this case in the light of briefs filed and have also, pursuant to subparagraph 2 of Section 924.32, Florida Statutes 1951, 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.

THOMAS, SEBRING, HOBSON and MATHEWS, JJ., concur. ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL and DREW, JJ., dissent.

Dissent — Drew

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

DREW, Justice

(dissenting).

I do not believe the record here supports a conviction and sentence of murder in the first degree. The cause should be remanded for a sentence for murder in the second degree as provided by Sec. 924.34, F.S.A.

On Rehearing

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

On Rehearing PER CURIAM.

Petition for rehearing of this case was granted and after reconsideration, the Court is of the view “that the evidence does not prove the * * * offense of which the defendant [was] found guilty,” murder in the first degree, but does establish guilt of murder in the second degree. So, by authority of Section 924.34, Florida Statutes 1951, and F.S.A., the judgment is reversed with directions to enter a judgment for such lesser offense and to pass sentence accordingly.

ROBERTS, C. J., TERRELL, THOMAS, HOBSON and DREW, JJ., concur.

SEBRING and MATHEWS, JJ., dissent.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1962: 11983: 119622026peak 1962 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Harris136 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1962)
  2. Tien Wang v. State426 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

Most recent

  1. Tien Wang v. State426 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)
  2. State v. Harris136 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1962)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list