Landrau v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Landrau v. State

442 So. 2d 418, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 25260

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 21, 1983

DocketNo. 82-1977

StatusPublished

This text of 442 So. 2d 418 (Landrau 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

Landrau v. State, 442 So. 2d 418, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 25260 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

HERSEY, Judge.

This appeal raises two issues. The first, whether narrative testimony by the victim of an attempted murder as to his pain and suffering and the medical measures that were taken because of his gunshot wound was irrelevant, we dispose of as harmless error, the testimony having been brief and the evidence of guilt overwhelming. See McGriff v. State, 417 So.2d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The second error complained of occurs in the sentence. The trial court retained jurisdiction over a portion of the sentence allegedly without stating grounds therefor with sufficient particularity. The error, however, was not preserved for review nor is it fundamental. McFadden v. State, 423 So.2d 456 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Hernandez v. State, 425 So.2d 213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).

Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and DELL, J., concur.

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

HERSEY, Judge.

This appeal raises two issues. The first, whether narrative testimony by the victim of an attempted murder as to his pain and suffering and the medical measures that were taken because of his gunshot wound was irrelevant, we dispose of as harmless error, the testimony having been brief and the evidence of guilt overwhelming. See McGriff v. State, 417 So.2d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The second error complained of occurs in the sentence. The trial court retained jurisdiction over a portion of the sentence allegedly without stating grounds therefor with sufficient particularity. The error, however, was not preserved for review nor is it fundamental. McFadden v. State, 423 So.2d 456 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Hernandez v. State, 425 So.2d 213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).

Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and DELL, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

442 So. 2d 418, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 25260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/landrau-v-state-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack