Davila v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Davila v. State

716 So. 2d 855, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 11311, 1998 WL 558779

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 4, 1998

DocketNo. 97-1692

StatusPublished

This text of 716 So. 2d 855 (Davila 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

Davila v. State, 716 So. 2d 855, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 11311, 1998 WL 558779 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Robert Davila, appeals his judgments and sentences entered by the trial court after a jury found him guilty of armed robbery¹ and two counts of burglary of a structure with assault.² Mr. Davila’s claims of error appear to be meritorious; however, all but two issues were not preserved for appeal, and none of the waived issues constitute fundamental error. In the two issues preserved for appeal, Mr. Davila claims the trial court erred in allowing the prosecutor to cross-examine him regarding the circumstances of his termination of his employment. The trial court correctly ruled that Mr. Davi-la opened the door to such questioning when he testified during his direct examination that he voluntarily left his employment. See § 90.612(2), Fla. Stat. (1996); see also Coco v. State, 62 So.2d 892, 895 (Fla.1953).

JUDGMENT and SENTENCE AFFIRMED.

GRIFFIN, C.J., and DAUKSCH and ANTOON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Robert Davila, appeals his judgments and sentences entered by the trial court after a jury found him guilty of armed robbery¹ and two counts of burglary of a structure with assault.² Mr. Davila’s claims of error appear to be meritorious; however, all but two issues were not preserved for appeal, and none of the waived issues constitute fundamental error. In the two issues preserved for appeal, Mr. Davila claims the trial court erred in allowing the prosecutor to cross-examine him regarding the circumstances of his termination of his employment. The trial court correctly ruled that Mr. Davi-la opened the door to such questioning when he testified during his direct examination that he voluntarily left his employment. See § 90.612(2), Fla. Stat. (1996); see also Coco v. State, 62 So.2d 892, 895 (Fla.1953).

JUDGMENT and SENTENCE AFFIRMED.

GRIFFIN, C.J., and DAUKSCH and ANTOON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

716 So. 2d 855, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 11311, 1998 WL 558779, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davila-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack