Defendant was convicted of robbery in a trial before the court without the intervention of a jury. On appeal he presents three
issues: (1) That the verdict of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence; (2) That the court erred in admitting into
evidence, over objection of defendant, a sum of money of which the defendant claimed to be the owner, and (3) That he was
deprived of the right to make an argument to the court at the close of all the evidence. Defendant properly introduced alibi evidence and contends that the State presented no evidence to refute such alibi by the
defendant and, therefore, failed to discharge its burden of proving defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This is defendant's
sole proposition relative to the sufficiency question. Apparently defendant is attempting to assert that the introduction
of alibi evidence places upon the State a greater burden of proof than it would otherwise have. If so, he presents no authorities
and we are aware of none to sustain such a proposition.