Cannon v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cannon v. State

384 So. 2d 970, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16927

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 24, 1980

DocketNo. 79-1050

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 384 So. 2d 970 (Cannon 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

Cannon v. State, 384 So. 2d 970, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16927 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

BASKIN, Judge.

Daniel Cannon, found guilty by a jury of robbery without the use of a weapon, as charged, appeals his conviction and sentence to seven years imprisonment followed by three years probation. He claims error on two grounds. First, Cannon argues that an impermissibly suggestive pre-trial identification so tainted an in-court identification as to deprive him of a fair trial. Second, he contends that the trial court erred in failing to sentence him pursuant to the Florida Youthful Offender Act. § 958.011 et seq., Fla.Stat. (1979).

Error, if any, in permitting the victim’s in-court identification of the defendant was not properly preserved for review by this court, and was therefore waived. Douglas v. State, 328 So.2d 18 (Fla.1976); Thomas v. State, 249 So.2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971).

As to the appellant’s second point, the record presented upon appeal does not reflect error in the trial court's failure to sentence under the Youthful Offender Act. We affirm the conviction and sentence without prejudice to appellant’s future application to the trial court pursuant to Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Jenrette v. State, 373 So.2d 718 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).

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

BASKIN, Judge.

Daniel Cannon, found guilty by a jury of robbery without the use of a weapon, as charged, appeals his conviction and sentence to seven years imprisonment followed by three years probation. He claims error on two grounds. First, Cannon argues that an impermissibly suggestive pre-trial identification so tainted an in-court identification as to deprive him of a fair trial. Second, he contends that the trial court erred in failing to sentence him pursuant to the Florida Youthful Offender Act. § 958.011 et seq., Fla.Stat. (1979).

Error, if any, in permitting the victim’s in-court identification of the defendant was not properly preserved for review by this court, and was therefore waived. Douglas v. State, 328 So.2d 18 (Fla.1976); Thomas v. State, 249 So.2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971).

As to the appellant’s second point, the record presented upon appeal does not reflect error in the trial court's failure to sentence under the Youthful Offender Act. We affirm the conviction and sentence without prejudice to appellant’s future application to the trial court pursuant to Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Jenrette v. State, 373 So.2d 718 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

384 So. 2d 970, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16927, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cannon-v-state-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack