Holland v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Holland v. State

632 So. 2d 723, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 1804, 1994 WL 68850

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 8, 1994

DocketNo. 93-1132

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 632 So. 2d 723 (Holland 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

Holland v. State, 632 So. 2d 723, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 1804, 1994 WL 68850 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm defendant’s convictions for strong-armed robbery and resisting arrest without violence. Although the trial court erred in “admitting into evidence an out-of-court statement relating accusatory information to establish the logical sequence of events,” Conley v. State, 620 So.2d 180, 183 (Fla.1993), we hold that the error was harmless beyond any reasonable doubt. A review of the record, which includes the officer’s testimony concerning his observation of defendant and the victim at the scene, defendant’s flight upon being questioned by the officer, the victim’s uncontradicted testimony that defendant took cash from him, and defendant’s possession of the victim’s check, demonstrates that there is no reasonable possibility that the improperly admitted evidence affected the verdict. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of convictions.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm defendant’s convictions for strong-armed robbery and resisting arrest without violence. Although the trial court erred in “admitting into evidence an out-of-court statement relating accusatory information to establish the logical sequence of events,” Conley v. State, 620 So.2d 180, 183 (Fla.1993), we hold that the error was harmless beyond any reasonable doubt. A review of the record, which includes the officer’s testimony concerning his observation of defendant and the victim at the scene, defendant’s flight upon being questioned by the officer, the victim’s uncontradicted testimony that defendant took cash from him, and defendant’s possession of the victim’s check, demonstrates that there is no reasonable possibility that the improperly admitted evidence affected the verdict. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of convictions.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

632 So. 2d 723, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 1804, 1994 WL 68850, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holland-v-state-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack