Fox v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Fox v. State

417 So. 2d 842, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 28631

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Fox v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 10 Fla. L. Weekly 946 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 6, 1982·No. No. AI-51·Published

Opinion

MILLS, Judge.

Fox appeals his conviction for armed robbery with a deadly weapon. We affirm.

A motion to sever codefendants is addressed to the discretion of the trial judge. There was no hostility between the defenses. No abuse of discretion is revealed by the lengthy record in this case, see McCray v. State, 416 So.2d 804 (Fla.1982); Downer v. State, 375 So.2d 840 (Fla.1979).

No abuse of discretion was present in the failure to grant a motion for mistrial. The record does not support the contention that [843]*843the prosecutor’s improper questioning tainted the trial.

AFFIRMED.

BOOTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

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

MILLS, Judge.

Fox appeals his conviction for armed robbery with a deadly weapon. We affirm.

A motion to sever codefendants is addressed to the discretion of the trial judge. There was no hostility between the defenses. No abuse of discretion is revealed by the lengthy record in this case, see McCray v. State, 416 So.2d 804 (Fla.1982); Downer v. State, 375 So.2d 840 (Fla.1979).

No abuse of discretion was present in the failure to grant a motion for mistrial. The record does not support the contention that [843]*843the prosecutor’s improper questioning tainted the trial.

AFFIRMED.

BOOTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

Fox v. State, 417 So. 2d 842, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 28631 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

417 So. 2d 842 (Fox v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related