Borjas v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Borjas v. State

703 So. 2d 1250, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 187, 1998 WL 10756

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 14, 1998

DocketNo. 96-4094

StatusPublished

This text of 703 So. 2d 1250 (Borjas 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

Borjas v. State, 703 So. 2d 1250, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 187, 1998 WL 10756 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm as to the first two points raised on appeal. Appellant’s third point contends that the trial court instructed the jury on a crime, of which he was convicted, different from that charged in the information. Moore v. State, 496 So.2d 255 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). The state, however, has moved to dismiss appellant’s third point, as it represents the second amended information, charging the correct crime, was before the court and jury.¹ Appellant’s argument was based on the charges contained in the first amended information. Accordingly, we grant the state’s motion and dismiss appellant’s point III.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part.

GLICKSTEIN, GUNTHER and POLEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm as to the first two points raised on appeal. Appellant’s third point contends that the trial court instructed the jury on a crime, of which he was convicted, different from that charged in the information. Moore v. State, 496 So.2d 255 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). The state, however, has moved to dismiss appellant’s third point, as it represents the second amended information, charging the correct crime, was before the court and jury.¹ Appellant’s argument was based on the charges contained in the first amended information. Accordingly, we grant the state’s motion and dismiss appellant’s point III.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part.

GLICKSTEIN, GUNTHER and POLEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

703 So. 2d 1250, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 187, 1998 WL 10756, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/borjas-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack