Landrum v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Landrum v. State

48 So. 3d 1021, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 18359, 2010 WL 4909634

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 3, 2010

DocketNo. 1D10-860

StatusPublished

This text of 48 So. 3d 1021 (Landrum 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

Landrum v. State, 48 So. 3d 1021, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 18359, 2010 WL 4909634 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Javares Landrum appeals convictions on two counts of robbery with a deadly weapon and one count of aggravated assault with a BB gun. On this record, the reliability and credibility of Bashonda Hanber-ry’s testimony were proper matters for the jury. Fitzpatrick v. State, 900 So.2d 495, 508 (Fla.2005) (stating that witness credibility and weight of the evidence are solely questions for the jury). The State has clearly distinguished the facts in Geibel v. State, 817 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), and State v. Shearod, 992 So.2d 900 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). Although acknowledging that someone committed the crimes, the defense argued the appellant was not present when the crimes occurred. Ms. Han-berry testified live at the trial. The defense rigorously cross-examined her and availed itself of numerous opportunities to question Ms. Hanberry’s motives, reliability, and credibility. We AFFIRM the judgments and sentences.

KAHN, VAN NORTWICK, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Javares Landrum appeals convictions on two counts of robbery with a deadly weapon and one count of aggravated assault with a BB gun. On this record, the reliability and credibility of Bashonda Hanber-ry’s testimony were proper matters for the jury. Fitzpatrick v. State, 900 So.2d 495, 508 (Fla.2005) (stating that witness credibility and weight of the evidence are solely questions for the jury). The State has clearly distinguished the facts in Geibel v. State, 817 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), and State v. Shearod, 992 So.2d 900 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). Although acknowledging that someone committed the crimes, the defense argued the appellant was not present when the crimes occurred. Ms. Han-berry testified live at the trial. The defense rigorously cross-examined her and availed itself of numerous opportunities to question Ms. Hanberry’s motives, reliability, and credibility. We AFFIRM the judgments and sentences.

KAHN, VAN NORTWICK, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 So. 3d 1021, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 18359, 2010 WL 4909634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/landrum-v-state-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack