263 SO2D 645 - Starling v. State

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently June 1990

16 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1 *646 McCrary, Ferguson & Lee, and Harold Long, Jr., Miami, for appellant.

¶2Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Miami, for appellee.

¶3Before CHARLES CARROLL, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5Defendant was found guilty by the trial court of assault with intent to commit a felony, first degree murder, for which he received a ten year sentence.

¶6On this appeal two points are presented by appellant. The first challenges the trial court's denial of defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal. The point is not well taken under the rule stated in Shifrin v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 210 So.2d 18. The second point is likewise unavailing because it is within the trial court's province as the trier of fact to resolve conflicts in the evidence presented. Hoover v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 212 So.2d 95; Eizenman v. State, Fla.App. 1961, 132 So.2d 763. At this stage of the proceedings, all conflicts and reasonable inferences therefrom are resolved in support of the judgment of conviction. Shuler v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 213 So.2d 312; Walden v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 191 So.2d 68. And, finding substantial competent evidence to support the trial judge's finding of guilt, we are required to affirm. Tafero v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 223 So.2d 564; Williams v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 187 So.2d 913.

¶7Affirmed.