Javers v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Javers v. State

712 So. 2d 443, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 6583, 1998 WL 299376

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 10, 1998

DocketNos. 96-1113, 96-1166

StatusPublished

This text of 712 So. 2d 443 (Javers 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

Javers v. State, 712 So. 2d 443, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 6583, 1998 WL 299376 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

As the State properly concedes, the sentences imposed by the trial court as to the defendants’ convictions for strong-arm robbery exceeded the statutory maximum. Therefore, those sentences are reversed, and this cause is remanded for resentencing within the statutory maximum.

The defendants also contend that the trial court abused its discretion by limiting their cross-examination of a police officer. Because the probative value of the evidence that the defendants sought to introduce during the police officer’s cross-examination was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, we disagree with the defendants and find that the trial court acted within its discretion by limiting the cross-examination. § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (1995).

The defendants’ remaining points lack merit.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded for resentencing.

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

PER CURIAM.

As the State properly concedes, the sentences imposed by the trial court as to the defendants’ convictions for strong-arm robbery exceeded the statutory maximum. Therefore, those sentences are reversed, and this cause is remanded for resentencing within the statutory maximum.

The defendants also contend that the trial court abused its discretion by limiting their cross-examination of a police officer. Because the probative value of the evidence that the defendants sought to introduce during the police officer’s cross-examination was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, we disagree with the defendants and find that the trial court acted within its discretion by limiting the cross-examination. § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (1995).

The defendants’ remaining points lack merit.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded for resentencing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

712 So. 2d 443, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 6583, 1998 WL 299376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/javers-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.