Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

281 So. 2d 586

Docket No. 72-839.

Spurlock v. State

Jimmy P. SPURLOCK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided August 15, 1973.

Rehearing Denied September 10, 1973.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1973-08-15

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently January 1984

8 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The jury verdict failed to fix the value of the stolen goods and to allege defendant knew the goods were stolen. [[Image here]] . 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 re viewable judicial act; ergo, there is no merit to defendant’s first point on appeal .”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Kirkland v. State

Relies on Tidwell v. the Circuit Court of Desoto County, Fla. · Myers v. State · Alvarez v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1973-08-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*587 James C. Dauksch, Jr., Orlando, for appellant.

¶2Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Andrew W. Lindsey, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Joel Remland, Legal Intern, Tallahassee, for appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4Defendant 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.

¶5The jury verdict failed to fix the value of the stolen goods and to allege defendant knew the goods were stolen.

¶6The 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.

¶7There 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.

¶8There is no merit to defendant's third point.

¶9Reversed and remanded, with directions.

¶10OWEN, C.J., and WALDEN and CROSS, JJ., concur.

/281/so2d/586 · .json · Public domain