Dunbar v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dunbar v. State

731 So. 2d 712, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 1426, 1999 WL 71381

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 17, 1999

DocketNo. 97-05089

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 731 So. 2d 712 (Dunbar 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

Dunbar v. State, 731 So. 2d 712, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 1426, 1999 WL 71381 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Robert Dunbar seeks review of his judgment and sentence in this burglary case. Because of procedural limitations, we are unable to address either of the issues raised by Dunbar on appeal. Affirmed.

Dunbar challenges the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial, but defense counsel failed to make any motions for judgment of acquittal or for a new trial. Therefore, Dunbar has waived review of this issue. See Stanley v. State, 626 So.2d 1004, 1005 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Sundell v. State, 354 So.2d 409, 410 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).

Dunbar also claims that the identification procedure used by law enforcement officers was fundamentally flawed. However, because defense counsel failed to object to the witnesses’ testimony regarding this identification, Dunbar has waived this issue as well. See Mustepher v. State, 419 So.2d 656, 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Lecoin v. State, 418 So.2d 336, 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

Affirmed.

PARKER, C.J., and WHATLEY, J., and DANAHY, PAUL W., (Senior) Judge, Concur.

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