Opinion

Brown v. State

  • 152 Fla. 314
  • 11 So. 2d 476
  • 1943 Fla. LEXIS 900
Court
Supreme Court of Florida
Filed
Jan 22, 1943
Status
Published
Author
Buford
On the bench
Buford, Terrell, Chapman, Adams
Cited by
1 cases
Authority
More cited than 73.7%

The opinion

*315

BUFORD, C. J.:

Appeal brings for review judgment of conviction under the second count of an information which charged, “that Walter Brown, of the County of Polk and State of Florida, on the 18th day of May, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and forty-one, in the county and State aforesaid, did unlawfully, while in an intoxicated condition and while under the influence of intoxicating liquor to such an extent as to be deprived of full possession of his normal faculties, drive and operate a certain motor vehicle, to-wit, an automobile, a further description thereof being to the Solicitor unknown, over a highway, street and thoroughfare of the State and county aforesaid, contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the State of Florida.

“Count 2. Be it further remembered that Wm G. Carver, acting County Solicitor for the County of Polk, prosecuting for the State of Florida in said county, under oath information makes that Walter Brown, of said State and county on the 18th day of May, 1941, did unlawfully, knowingly and wilfully resist and obstruct and oppose Kenneth Barfield Constable in said County, he being a person duly authorized to execute process, and did then and there do violence to the person of the said Kenneth Barfield, while the said officer was engaged in making a lawful arrest, . . .”

The second count of the information is sufficient to charge a criminal offense.

There are allegations contained in the motion for new trial which cannot be taken as proof of their verity. There is no transcript of the evidence as presented at the trial submitted for our consideration. The record lodged here fails to show that the motion for new trial was ever presented to or acted upon by the trial court. Nor is there any showing in the record as to when the motion was filed in the court below.

In the light of the record here we cannot say that reversible error was committed. So, the judgment is affirmed.

So ordered.

Affirmed.

TERRELL, CHAPMAN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.