Bynes v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bynes v. State

581 So. 2d 654, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 6757, 1991 WL 117039

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 3, 1991·No. No. 90-1846·Published

Opinion

GRIFFIN, Judge.

We agree with defendant that the information charging burglary and petit theft of property of Mr. Cajigas should not have been consolidated for trial with the crimes perpetrated on Treskovich and Schweir; accordingly the convictions for burglary and petit theft in case no. 89-7581 are reversed and remanded for a new trial. Finfrock v. State, 507 So.2d 1230 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). There is no merit to appellant’s other points on appeal.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur.

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

GRIFFIN, Judge.

We agree with defendant that the information charging burglary and petit theft of property of Mr. Cajigas should not have been consolidated for trial with the crimes perpetrated on Treskovich and Schweir; accordingly the convictions for burglary and petit theft in case no. 89-7581 are reversed and remanded for a new trial. Finfrock v. State, 507 So.2d 1230 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). There is no merit to appellant’s other points on appeal.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur.

Bynes v. State, 581 So. 2d 654, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 6757, 1991 WL 117039 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

581 So. 2d 654 (Bynes v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related