Bryant v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bryant v. State

677 So. 2d 932, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 7622, 1996 WL 397276

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 17, 1996

DocketNo. 95-1498

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 677 So. 2d 932 (Bryant 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

Bryant v. State, 677 So. 2d 932, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 7622, 1996 WL 397276 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

POLEN, Judge.

Melvin Bryant appeals a final judgment convicting him of sexual battery with slight force, alleging that the trial court should have granted his motion for mistrial based on prosecutorial comments during closing argument. Bryant also appeals the imposition of the costs of prosecution, and a public defender fee. We affirm the denial of the motion for mistrial, as we find the prosecutor’s comments closer to those found not to require a mistrial in Holliday v. State, 389 So.2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). We also affirm the imposition of the costs of prosecution and the special public defender fee because Bryant failed to object to either one, thus failing to preserve the imposition of these fees and costs for appellate review. See Norman v. State, 676 So.2d 7 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Holmes v. State, 658 So.2d 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (affirming the imposition of costs of prosecution and special public defender fees as there was no objection below).

GLICKSTEIN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

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

POLEN, Judge.

Melvin Bryant appeals a final judgment convicting him of sexual battery with slight force, alleging that the trial court should have granted his motion for mistrial based on prosecutorial comments during closing argument. Bryant also appeals the imposition of the costs of prosecution, and a public defender fee. We affirm the denial of the motion for mistrial, as we find the prosecutor’s comments closer to those found not to require a mistrial in Holliday v. State, 389 So.2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). We also affirm the imposition of the costs of prosecution and the special public defender fee because Bryant failed to object to either one, thus failing to preserve the imposition of these fees and costs for appellate review. See Norman v. State, 676 So.2d 7 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Holmes v. State, 658 So.2d 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (affirming the imposition of costs of prosecution and special public defender fees as there was no objection below).

GLICKSTEIN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

677 So. 2d 932, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 7622, 1996 WL 397276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bryant-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack