Hooks v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hooks v. State

462 So. 2d 58, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 85, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 16183

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 28, 1984

DocketNo. 84-348

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 462 So. 2d 58 (Hooks 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

Hooks v. State, 462 So. 2d 58, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 85, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 16183 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the judgment of conviction and sentence except that we reverse that portion of the sentence assessing costs on the authority of Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947 (Fla.1984).

We reject the appellant’s claim of harmful error in the rejection of certain evidence of the appellant’s knowledge of prior acts of violence by the victim. In view of the other evidence on this issue actually received we believe the trial court’s ruling constituted harmless error. We also find no error in the receipt of evidence of a prior altercation between the appellant and the victim. See Kennedy v. State, 385 So.2d 1020 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Likewise, we reject appellant’s claim that the trial court erred in enhancing appellant’s sentence. See Miller v. State, 438 [59]*59So.2d 83 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); contra Smith v. State, 445 So.2d 1050 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

ANSTEAD, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN and BARKETT, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the judgment of conviction and sentence except that we reverse that portion of the sentence assessing costs on the authority of Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947 (Fla.1984).

We reject the appellant’s claim of harmful error in the rejection of certain evidence of the appellant’s knowledge of prior acts of violence by the victim. In view of the other evidence on this issue actually received we believe the trial court’s ruling constituted harmless error. We also find no error in the receipt of evidence of a prior altercation between the appellant and the victim. See Kennedy v. State, 385 So.2d 1020 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Likewise, we reject appellant’s claim that the trial court erred in enhancing appellant’s sentence. See Miller v. State, 438 [59]*59So.2d 83 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); contra Smith v. State, 445 So.2d 1050 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

ANSTEAD, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN and BARKETT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

462 So. 2d 58, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 85, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 16183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hooks-v-state-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack