Kreiser v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kreiser v. State

380 So. 2d 455, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 15455

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 10, 1980

DocketNo. 78-2190/T4-243

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 380 So. 2d 455 (Kreiser 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

Kreiser v. State, 380 So. 2d 455, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 15455 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinions

COBB, Judge.

The defendant appeals his conviction of burglary on grounds of allegedly prejudicial comments by the prosecutor during closing argument and the refusal by the trial court to instruct on the maximum penalty. We have reviewed the comments cited by defendant and do not find them so prejudicial as to warrant a new trial. See Oliva v. State, 346 So.2d 1066 (Fla.3d DCA 1977), cert. dismissed 348 So.2d 951 (Fla.1977); Johnson v. State, 348 So.2d 646 (Fla.3d DCA 1977). Moreover, the defendant’s failure to timely object to those comments precludes appellate review. Clark v. State, 363 So.2d 331, 335 (Fla.1978); Gibson v. State, 351 So.2d 948, 950 (Fla.1977).

We consider the failure of the trial court to instruct the jury as to the maximum penalty harmless error as more fully explicated in this court’s opinion in Murray v. State, 378 So.2d 111 (Fla.5th DCA 1980).

The defendant also urges, and the state agrees, that the defendant was not given credit for time served prior to sentencing. Section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes (1977). Thus, the sentence is reversed and the case remanded to the trial court for resentencing.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED, SENTENCE REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ORFINGER, J., concurs. DAUKSCH, C. J., concurs specially with opinion.

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

COBB, Judge.

The defendant appeals his conviction of burglary on grounds of allegedly prejudicial comments by the prosecutor during closing argument and the refusal by the trial court to instruct on the maximum penalty. We have reviewed the comments cited by defendant and do not find them so prejudicial as to warrant a new trial. See Oliva v. State, 346 So.2d 1066 (Fla.3d DCA 1977), cert. dismissed 348 So.2d 951 (Fla.1977); Johnson v. State, 348 So.2d 646 (Fla.3d DCA 1977). Moreover, the defendant’s failure to timely object to those comments precludes appellate review. Clark v. State, 363 So.2d 331, 335 (Fla.1978); Gibson v. State, 351 So.2d 948, 950 (Fla.1977).

We consider the failure of the trial court to instruct the jury as to the maximum penalty harmless error as more fully explicated in this court’s opinion in Murray v. State, 378 So.2d 111 (Fla.5th DCA 1980).

The defendant also urges, and the state agrees, that the defendant was not given credit for time served prior to sentencing. Section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes (1977). Thus, the sentence is reversed and the case remanded to the trial court for resentencing.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED, SENTENCE REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ORFINGER, J., concurs. DAUKSCH, C. J., concurs specially with opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

380 So. 2d 455, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 15455, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kreiser-v-state-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack