Juan Navas v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Juan Navas v. State of Florida

186 So. 3d 1127, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 4109, 2016 WL 1039139

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 16, 2016

Docket4D14-1044

StatusPublished

This text of 186 So. 3d 1127 (Juan Navas v. State of Florida) 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

Juan Navas v. State of Florida, 186 So. 3d 1127, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 4109, 2016 WL 1039139 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

WARNER, J.

We affirm appellant’s convictions and sentences for trespass in a structure, trespass in a conveyance, theft, and sexual battery with the victim physically helpless. Appellant claims that a détective’s testimony regarding non-verbal “admissions” by the appellant, observed by the detective during an investigative interview, was improper opinion testimony and a comment *1128 on the guilt of appellant. Appellant’s counsel did not object, however, to this testimony. Thus, this issue can be raised on appeal only if it constituted fundamental error, which we conclude that it does not. See Odeh v. State, 82 So.3d 915, 921 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (describing fundamental error as error that reaches down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error). We also cannot state that the failure to object constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel on the face of this record. Kidd v. State, 978 So.2d 868, 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Appellant also contends that the court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on his petit theft conviction. We affirm without further comment, concluding that the State presented evidence inconsistent with appellant’s hypothesis of innocence.

Affirmed, without prejudice to appellant’s ability to assert any claim in a motion for post-cónviction relief.

CIKLIN, C.J., and KLINGENSMITH, J., concur.

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

WARNER, J.

We affirm appellant’s convictions and sentences for trespass in a structure, trespass in a conveyance, theft, and sexual battery with the victim physically helpless. Appellant claims that a détective’s testimony regarding non-verbal “admissions” by the appellant, observed by the detective during an investigative interview, was improper opinion testimony and a comment *1128 on the guilt of appellant. Appellant’s counsel did not object, however, to this testimony. Thus, this issue can be raised on appeal only if it constituted fundamental error, which we conclude that it does not. See Odeh v. State, 82 So.3d 915, 921 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (describing fundamental error as error that reaches down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error). We also cannot state that the failure to object constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel on the face of this record. Kidd v. State, 978 So.2d 868, 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Appellant also contends that the court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on his petit theft conviction. We affirm without further comment, concluding that the State presented evidence inconsistent with appellant’s hypothesis of innocence.

Affirmed, without prejudice to appellant’s ability to assert any claim in a motion for post-cónviction relief.

CIKLIN, C.J., and KLINGENSMITH, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 So. 3d 1127, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 4109, 2016 WL 1039139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/juan-navas-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack