Frazier v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Frazier v. State

362 So. 2d 1048, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16674

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 5, 1978·No. No. KK-24·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenged the eyewitness identification at his trial by way of a motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence. (Rule 3.850, Fla.R.Crim.P.) The trial court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing and we affirm.

The testimony concerning the pre-trial line-ups and the identification at trial was properly presented to the jury for resolution. Furthermore, the issue of the sufficiency of the eyewitness identification could have been raised on direct appeal. Von Eberstein v. State, 270 So.2d 444 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1972).

We, therefore, AFFIRM.

McCORD, C. J., and BOYER and MILLS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenged the eyewitness identification at his trial by way of a motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence. (Rule 3.850, Fla.R.Crim.P.) The trial court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing and we affirm.

The testimony concerning the pre-trial line-ups and the identification at trial was properly presented to the jury for resolution. Furthermore, the issue of the sufficiency of the eyewitness identification could have been raised on direct appeal. Von Eberstein v. State, 270 So.2d 444 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1972).

We, therefore, AFFIRM.

McCORD, C. J., and BOYER and MILLS, JJ., concur.

Frazier v. State, 362 So. 2d 1048, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16674 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

362 So. 2d 1048 (Frazier v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related