Coley v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Coley v. State

648 So. 2d 165, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 10749, 1994 WL 617083

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Coley v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 616 So. 2d 1017 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 9, 1994·No. No. 93-3112·Published

Opinion

FARMER, Judge.

We affirm defendant’s conviction. Any error in excluding evidence during the cross examination of the witness Jordan was harmless. There was no error in the court’s limitation of the cross examination of the medical examiner.

As to the sentence, upon the state’s concession of error, we strike the restitution order as well as the condition of probation relating to restitution. As corrected, the sentence is affirmed.

GUNTHER, J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.

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

FARMER, Judge.

We affirm defendant’s conviction. Any error in excluding evidence during the cross examination of the witness Jordan was harmless. There was no error in the court’s limitation of the cross examination of the medical examiner.

As to the sentence, upon the state’s concession of error, we strike the restitution order as well as the condition of probation relating to restitution. As corrected, the sentence is affirmed.

GUNTHER, J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.

Coley v. State, 648 So. 2d 165, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 10749, 1994 WL 617083 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

648 So. 2d 165 (Coley v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.