Clark v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Clark v. State

635 So. 2d 68, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 163, 1994 WL 9524

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 18, 1994

DocketNo. 92-3007

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 635 So. 2d 68 (Clark 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

Clark v. State, 635 So. 2d 68, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 163, 1994 WL 9524 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

WEBSTER, Judge.

In this direct criminal appeal, appellant seeks review of his armed robbery conviction. The sole issue raised is whether the trial court erroneously denied appellant’s motion [69]*69for judgment of acquittal because the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that appellant was carrying “a firearm or other deadly weapon” at the time of the offense. § 812.13(2)(a), Fla.Stat. (1991). We affirm.

We agree with the state that appellant failed to preserve for review the issue he now seeks to raise. E.g., Showers v. State, 570 So.2d 377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Cornwell v. State, 425 So.2d 1189 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Moreover, even if the issue had been preserved for appeal, the result would not be different. Unlike Butler v. State, 602 So.2d 1303 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), upon which appellant relies, in this case the evidence in support of the proposition that appellant carried “a firearm or other deadly weapon” included direct testimony by the victim (who had received firearms training in the military) that he had actually observed appellant holding what appeared to be a small-caliber handgun. Such evidence is sufficient to distinguish this ease from Butler, and to justify submitting it to the jury.

AFFIRMED.

JOANOS and KAHN, JJ., concur.

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

WEBSTER, Judge.

In this direct criminal appeal, appellant seeks review of his armed robbery conviction. The sole issue raised is whether the trial court erroneously denied appellant’s motion [69]*69for judgment of acquittal because the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that appellant was carrying “a firearm or other deadly weapon” at the time of the offense. § 812.13(2)(a), Fla.Stat. (1991). We affirm.

We agree with the state that appellant failed to preserve for review the issue he now seeks to raise. E.g., Showers v. State, 570 So.2d 377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Cornwell v. State, 425 So.2d 1189 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Moreover, even if the issue had been preserved for appeal, the result would not be different. Unlike Butler v. State, 602 So.2d 1303 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), upon which appellant relies, in this case the evidence in support of the proposition that appellant carried “a firearm or other deadly weapon” included direct testimony by the victim (who had received firearms training in the military) that he had actually observed appellant holding what appeared to be a small-caliber handgun. Such evidence is sufficient to distinguish this ease from Butler, and to justify submitting it to the jury.

AFFIRMED.

JOANOS and KAHN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

635 So. 2d 68, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 163, 1994 WL 9524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-state-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack