PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted of entering a store with intent to steal, and of maliciously destroying property. His principle contentions are (1) that the officers who arrested him without a warrant had no probable cause to believe he had committed a felony, and therefore the evidence taken from him was illegally seized and should have been suppressed; and (2) the evidence presented at the trial was insufficient to convict. We find no error.
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.