David B. Cox v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

David B. Cox v. State of Florida

193 So. 3d 23, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 4108, 2016 WL 1039136

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 16, 2016

Docket4D11-0987

StatusPublished

This text of 193 So. 3d 23 (David B. Cox v. State of Florida) 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

David B. Cox v. State of Florida, 193 So. 3d 23, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 4108, 2016 WL 1039136 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

DAMOORGIAN, J.

David B.- Cox appeals his judgment of guilt arid sentences for one count of burglary of an occupied conveyance and one count of aggravated assault with a firearm. He .argues that this Court should reverse because:. 1) the State committed a Brady 1 violation in failing to disclose two of its witnesses’ criminal records; 2) the trial court erred in denying his ¡motion for judgment of acquittal on the burglary, of an occupied conveyance:.count;. 3) the, prosecutor made several un-objected to but improper comments, during closing arguments; 4) there were several un-objeeted to evidentiary and procedural errors which cumulatively resulted in fundamental error; and 5) trial counsel’s performance was ineffective. We affirm in all respects, but do so without prejudice for Appellant to raise his Brady violation and ineffective assistance of counsel arguments in a Rule 3,850 motion for postconviction relief.

Affirmed.

MAY and GERBER, JJ., concur.

1

. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).

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

DAMOORGIAN, J.

David B.- Cox appeals his judgment of guilt arid sentences for one count of burglary of an occupied conveyance and one count of aggravated assault with a firearm. He .argues that this Court should reverse because:. 1) the State committed a Brady 1 violation in failing to disclose two of its witnesses’ criminal records; 2) the trial court erred in denying his ¡motion for judgment of acquittal on the burglary, of an occupied conveyance:.count;. 3) the, prosecutor made several un-objected to but improper comments, during closing arguments; 4) there were several un-objeeted to evidentiary and procedural errors which cumulatively resulted in fundamental error; and 5) trial counsel’s performance was ineffective. We affirm in all respects, but do so without prejudice for Appellant to raise his Brady violation and ineffective assistance of counsel arguments in a Rule 3,850 motion for postconviction relief.

Affirmed.

MAY and GERBER, JJ., concur.

1

. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 So. 3d 23, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 4108, 2016 WL 1039136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-b-cox-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack