Cosatime v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cosatime v. State

570 So. 2d 396, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 8791, 1990 WL 179065

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 20, 1990

DocketNo. 89-733

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 570 So. 2d 396 (Cosatime 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

Cosatime v. State, 570 So. 2d 396, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 8791, 1990 WL 179065 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Without uttering a reason, the defendant allegedly approached the victim on a street corner, pulled a gun, and ordered the victim to remain in place. Ignoring the instruction, the victim fled and was shot in the back. The defendant, who had recently been released from prison, got into an automobile and left the scene.

The victim testified that he fled because he recognized the defendant as a feared person who had previously been involved in an altercation with a mutual acquaintance. He identified the defendant from a batch of police photographs, calling him by his street name “Poppy Dread.” He again identified the defendant at trial.

Cosatime, the alleged gunman, appeals his conviction for aggravated battery entered on a jury verdict. Two issues are raised, one challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, and the other challenging the validity of a departure sentence where one of the two grounds given was invalid. Neither point has merit. See Tibbs v. State, 397 So.2d 1120 (Fla.) (conflicts in evidence must be resolved in favor of a jury verdict), cert. granted, 454 U.S. 963, 102 S.Ct. 502, 70 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981), aff'd, 457 U.S. 31, 102 S.Ct. 2211, 72 L.Ed.2d 652 (1982); § 921.001(5), Fla.Stat. (1989) (sentence will be upheld where at least one factor justifies departure).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Without uttering a reason, the defendant allegedly approached the victim on a street corner, pulled a gun, and ordered the victim to remain in place. Ignoring the instruction, the victim fled and was shot in the back. The defendant, who had recently been released from prison, got into an automobile and left the scene.

The victim testified that he fled because he recognized the defendant as a feared person who had previously been involved in an altercation with a mutual acquaintance. He identified the defendant from a batch of police photographs, calling him by his street name “Poppy Dread.” He again identified the defendant at trial.

Cosatime, the alleged gunman, appeals his conviction for aggravated battery entered on a jury verdict. Two issues are raised, one challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, and the other challenging the validity of a departure sentence where one of the two grounds given was invalid. Neither point has merit. See Tibbs v. State, 397 So.2d 1120 (Fla.) (conflicts in evidence must be resolved in favor of a jury verdict), cert. granted, 454 U.S. 963, 102 S.Ct. 502, 70 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981), aff'd, 457 U.S. 31, 102 S.Ct. 2211, 72 L.Ed.2d 652 (1982); § 921.001(5), Fla.Stat. (1989) (sentence will be upheld where at least one factor justifies departure).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

570 So. 2d 396, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 8791, 1990 WL 179065, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cosatime-v-state-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack