Lee v. State

456 So. 2d 1211, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 1977, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14825
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 11, 1984·No. No. 83-1313·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was found guilty by a jury of armed robbery and sentenced by the trial court to thirty years imprisonment in the state penitentiary.

Appellant has appealed the judgment and sentence. The grounds relied on by appellant for reversal are: (1) the improper and prejudicial remarks of the prosecutor; (2) the court’s admission into evidence of a prejudicial photograph from police files; and (3) the court’s restriction upon defense counsel’s closing argument and the limitation of his cross-examination of a state’s witness.

An appellant, in an appeal in a criminal case, has the burden of showing that the trial proceedings were so infected with prejudicial error as to compel a reversal of the judgment. Such error must be clearly demonstrated by appellant.

The grounds relied on by appellant for reversal have been considered by us in the light of the record, briefs and arguments of counsel and we find that no reversible error has been shown. The record discloses that the verdict is supported by [1212]*1212the evidence and that the several rulings of the trial court challenged by the appellant do not on the record constitute harmful error. Duncan v. State, 450 So.2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Betsy v. State, 368 So.2d 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).

Therefore the judgment and sentence appealed are affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Lee v. State, 456 So. 2d 1211, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 1977, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14825 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

456 So. 2d 1211 (Lee v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Thomas v. State
705 So. 2d 717 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
Viera v. State
490 So. 2d 1332 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)