Arrebola v. State
756 So. 2d 1107, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 5521, 2000 WL 561662
Opinion
As we cannot conclude that the challenged remarks made by the state during its closing arguments in this trial were fundamentally erroneous as urged by the appellant, we affirm his conviction and sentence for burglary of an unoccupied structure. See McDonald v. State, 743 So.2d 501 (Fla.1999); Sandoval v. State, 689 So.2d 1258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).
Affirm.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Arrebola v. State, 756 So. 2d 1107, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 5521, 2000 WL 561662 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).
756 So. 2d 1107 (Arrebola v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
McDonald v. State
743 So. 2d 501 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1999)
Sandoval v. State
689 So. 2d 1258 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)