Garcia v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Garcia v. State

501 So. 2d 106, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 299, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6377

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 20, 1987

DocketNo. 84-610

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 501 So. 2d 106 (Garcia 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

Garcia v. State, 501 So. 2d 106, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 299, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6377 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Rejecting the only point which challenges the defendant’s first degree murder and robbery convictions, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s announcement that final arguments for each side would be limited to one and one-quarter hours, and rejecting defense counsel’s request for two hours instead. See Baker v. State, 241 So.2d 683 (Fla.1970). See generally Foster v. State, 464 So.2d 1214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). While the trial was a relatively lengthy one, the record shows that counsel fully argued his position, was not interrupted or restricted in doing so, and neither sought additional time below at the end of his argument nor has suggested here what more he would have said if he had been granted it. Compare Hickey v. State, 484 So.2d 1271 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (thirty minute limit in murder case unreasonable when counsel requested one hour and was cut off at thirty minutes while attempting to argue further), review denied, 492 So.2d 1335 (Fla.1986).

We also find no error in departing upwards from the guidelines on the robbery charge on the basis of the first degree murder conviction. Smith v. State, 454 So.2d 90 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Rejecting the only point which challenges the defendant’s first degree murder and robbery convictions, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s announcement that final arguments for each side would be limited to one and one-quarter hours, and rejecting defense counsel’s request for two hours instead. See Baker v. State, 241 So.2d 683 (Fla.1970). See generally Foster v. State, 464 So.2d 1214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). While the trial was a relatively lengthy one, the record shows that counsel fully argued his position, was not interrupted or restricted in doing so, and neither sought additional time below at the end of his argument nor has suggested here what more he would have said if he had been granted it. Compare Hickey v. State, 484 So.2d 1271 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (thirty minute limit in murder case unreasonable when counsel requested one hour and was cut off at thirty minutes while attempting to argue further), review denied, 492 So.2d 1335 (Fla.1986).

We also find no error in departing upwards from the guidelines on the robbery charge on the basis of the first degree murder conviction. Smith v. State, 454 So.2d 90 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

501 So. 2d 106, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 299, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garcia-v-state-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack