Delaney v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Delaney v. State

342 So. 2d 1098, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15916

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 29, 1977

DocketNo. 76-997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 342 So. 2d 1098 (Delaney 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

Delaney v. State, 342 So. 2d 1098, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15916 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was charged with robbery, grand larceny, and resisting arrest. He was tried before a jury, acquitted of Count I, convicted of a lesser-included offense under Count II, and convicted under Count III.

On appeal, error is asserted in the form of the verdict as rendered in the conviction for the lesser-included offense under Count II, and that the trial judge should have declared a mistrial because of the alleged improper comment by counsel during closing argument.

As to the first error urged, no motion was directed to the trial court to correct the form of the verdict and, therefore, no error has been preserved for review by this court. Benitez v. State, 172 So.2d 520 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1965); Hall v. State, 203 So.2d 202 (Fla. 2nd D.C.A. 1967); Jones v. State, 248 So.2d 517 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1971); McPhee v. State, 254 So.2d 406 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1971); Kruglak v. State, 300 So.2d 315 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1974); State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7 (Fla.1974); Davis v. United States, 409 U.S. 841, 93 S.Ct. 193, 34 L.Ed.2d 80 (1973). Even if the proper motion had been made, it is doubtful that any error would have been made to appear. Russo v. State, 340 So.2d 1273 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1976).

As to the second error urged, no objection to the first comment on the part of the prosecutor during closing argument was made and, therefore, no error has been made to appear in this regard. Rogers v. State, 158 Fla. 582, 30 So.2d 625 (1947); State v. Jones, 204 So.2d 515 (Fla.1967). Further, as to the second comment, upon objection by defense counsel the trial court offered to give a curative instruction and defense counsel requested he not do so. Therefore, the defendant will not now be heard to complain of this ruling. Further, it appears that the comment made by the prosecutor in closing argument, which was objected to, was nothing more than a valid comment on the evidence. Clinton v. State, 56 Fla. 57, 47 So. 389 (1908).

Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the jury’s verdict, adjudication and sentences here under review, be and the same are hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was charged with robbery, grand larceny, and resisting arrest. He was tried before a jury, acquitted of Count I, convicted of a lesser-included offense under Count II, and convicted under Count III.

On appeal, error is asserted in the form of the verdict as rendered in the conviction for the lesser-included offense under Count II, and that the trial judge should have declared a mistrial because of the alleged improper comment by counsel during closing argument.

As to the first error urged, no motion was directed to the trial court to correct the form of the verdict and, therefore, no error has been preserved for review by this court. Benitez v. State, 172 So.2d 520 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1965); Hall v. State, 203 So.2d 202 (Fla. 2nd D.C.A. 1967); Jones v. State, 248 So.2d 517 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1971); McPhee v. State, 254 So.2d 406 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1971); Kruglak v. State, 300 So.2d 315 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1974); State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7 (Fla.1974); Davis v. United States, 409 U.S. 841, 93 S.Ct. 193, 34 L.Ed.2d 80 (1973). Even if the proper motion had been made, it is doubtful that any error would have been made to appear. Russo v. State, 340 So.2d 1273 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1976).

As to the second error urged, no objection to the first comment on the part of the prosecutor during closing argument was made and, therefore, no error has been made to appear in this regard. Rogers v. State, 158 Fla. 582, 30 So.2d 625 (1947); State v. Jones, 204 So.2d 515 (Fla.1967). Further, as to the second comment, upon objection by defense counsel the trial court offered to give a curative instruction and defense counsel requested he not do so. Therefore, the defendant will not now be heard to complain of this ruling. Further, it appears that the comment made by the prosecutor in closing argument, which was objected to, was nothing more than a valid comment on the evidence. Clinton v. State, 56 Fla. 57, 47 So. 389 (1908).

Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the jury’s verdict, adjudication and sentences here under review, be and the same are hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

342 So. 2d 1098, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/delaney-v-state-fladistctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack