Hall v. State (215 So. 2d 496, 1968)

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of his conviction of the crime of robbery.

It is the appellant’s contention that the state failed to establish a prima facie case of robbery against him because the eye witness did not satisfactorily establish appellant’s identity as a participant in the crime.

We have carefully considered this contention in the light of the evidence appearing in the record and the controlling principles of law; we have concluded that appellant’s contention is without merit. In our opinion there is substantial competent evidence to support the conviction. Crum v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 24; Sharon v. State, Fla.App.1963, 156 So.2d 677.

Affirmed.