Coleman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Coleman v. State

230 So. 2d 725, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 7055

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Coleman v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 215 So. 2d 96 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 4, 1970·No. No. 69-423·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and heard oral argument. On the basis thereof we are convinced that if error occurred with respect to the introduction of a fingerprint card and testimony relating thereto it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We, therefore, affirm the judgment and sentence from which this appeal has been taken. Chapman v. State of California, 1967, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 24 A.L.R.3d 1065 and Section 924.33, F.S. 1967, F.S.A.

Affirmed.

WALDEN, McCAIN and REED, JJ„ concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and heard oral argument. On the basis thereof we are convinced that if error occurred with respect to the introduction of a fingerprint card and testimony relating thereto it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We, therefore, affirm the judgment and sentence from which this appeal has been taken. Chapman v. State of California, 1967, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 24 A.L.R.3d 1065 and Section 924.33, F.S. 1967, F.S.A.

Affirmed.

WALDEN, McCAIN and REED, JJ„ concur.

Coleman v. State, 230 So. 2d 725, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 7055 (Fla. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

230 So. 2d 725 (Coleman v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related