# Brown v. State

> District Court of Appeal of Florida · April 19, 1983 · 429 So. 2d 839

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7524866

## Case

- **Full name:** Anthony Samuel BROWN v. The STATE of Florida
- **Court:** District Court of Appeal of Florida
- **Decided:** April 19, 1983
- **Citations:** 429 So. 2d 839; 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 20805
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Baskin, Jorgenson, Pearson
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7524866

## Opinion text

PER CURIAM.
Contrary to the only contention of the defendant which warrants discussion, the jury’s acquittal of him on two counts of the information charging robbery and sexual battery was not legally or, for that matter, logically inconsistent with their guilty verdict on the remaining count, which charged him with entering a dwelling with the intent to commit robbery and sexual battery. This contention was put to rest adversely to the defendant in Robinson v. State, 393 So.2d 33, 34 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981):
“Defendant’s acquittal only signified that the jury, for whatever reason, determined that the defendant was unsuccessful in carrying out his intent to commit an offense after entering the dwelling. Consummation of intent is unnecessary to support a conviction for entering a dwell *840 ing with the intent to commit an offense. See, Griffin v. State, 276 So.2d 842 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973).”
See also Pitts v. State, 425 So.2d 542 (Fla.1983).
Affirmed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7524866. Public record. Not legal advice.