Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

280 So. 2d 35

Docket No. 73-82.

Mills v. State

Hollis MILLS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided July 10, 1973.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1973-07-10

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“The trial court still denied the continuance, although he did schedule the trial near the end of the docket. The jury found Mr. Trocola guilty of three of the charged offenses. He seeks a new trial arguing that the trial judge abused its discretion in denying a continuance. As a general rule, the denial of a motion for continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the action of the court will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a clear showing that there has been a”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Trocola v. State

Relies on Douglas v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1973-07-10

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently November 2013

13 state decisions

5019731980199020002010decided

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.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and John Lipinski, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

¶2Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and William L. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

¶3Before BARKDULL, C.J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5An information was filed against the defendant-appellant for (1) uttering a worthless check, (2) grand larceny, and (3) buying, receiving and concealing stolen property. A non-jury trial was held and the defendant was convicted of uttering a worthless check and then sentenced to one year in the Dade County Jail.

¶6On appeal, appellant first contends that the trial court erred in denying the defense motions for continuance. "As a general rule, the granting or denial of a motion for continuance is within the discretion of the trial court and the action of the court on such motion will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a clear showing that there has been a palpable abuse of that discretion to the disadvantage of the accused, or, whereby his rights may have been jeopardized." Douglas v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 216 So.2d 82 and cases cited therein. The record on appeal in the case sub judice does reflect in fact that the trial court did grant several continuances to the defense but then denied defendant's motions requesting further continuances. Thus, no abuse of discretion having been made to appear, appellant's first argument must fail.

¶7Secondly, defendant-appellant contends the trial court erred in finding sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the alleged offense. We disagree. After a thorough examination of the record, we conclude that there was competent substantial *36 evidence to support the judgment of conviction as to the commission of the offense and as to the identity of the appellant as the perpetrator thereof.

¶8Accordingly, the judgment herein appealed must be and hereby is affirmed.

¶9Affirmed.

/280/so2d/35 · .json · Public domain