Ashley v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ashley v. State

522 So. 2d 1028, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 869, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1314, 1988 WL 28295

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 5, 1988

DocketNo. 86-991

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 522 So. 2d 1028 (Ashley v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ashley v. State, 522 So. 2d 1028, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 869, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1314, 1988 WL 28295 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the defendant’s conviction and sentence. In so doing, we reject his contentions that the trial court erred by (1) refusing to suppress certain eyewitness identification testimony which the defendant claims was the result of an impermissi-bly suggestive show up, see Taylor v. State, 458 So.2d 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Williams v. State, 438 So.2d 936 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); (2) instructing the jury that the defendant’s flight upon his arrest could be considered in assessing his guilt, see Bundy v. State, 471 So.2d 9 (Fla.1985); and (3) arguably sentencing the defendant to seven years’ imprisonment under an invalid scoresheet showing a guideline sentence of seven to nine years rather than five and one-half to seven years, where the record clearly reflects the trial court’s intention to impose a seven year sentence under the correct scoresheet.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the defendant’s conviction and sentence. In so doing, we reject his contentions that the trial court erred by (1) refusing to suppress certain eyewitness identification testimony which the defendant claims was the result of an impermissi-bly suggestive show up, see Taylor v. State, 458 So.2d 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Williams v. State, 438 So.2d 936 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); (2) instructing the jury that the defendant’s flight upon his arrest could be considered in assessing his guilt, see Bundy v. State, 471 So.2d 9 (Fla.1985); and (3) arguably sentencing the defendant to seven years’ imprisonment under an invalid scoresheet showing a guideline sentence of seven to nine years rather than five and one-half to seven years, where the record clearly reflects the trial court’s intention to impose a seven year sentence under the correct scoresheet.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

522 So. 2d 1028, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 869, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1314, 1988 WL 28295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ashley-v-state-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack