Lee v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lee v. State

632 So. 2d 186, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 947, 1994 WL 45016

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 15, 1994

DocketNo. 93-1335

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 632 So. 2d 186 (Lee 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

Lee v. State, 632 So. 2d 186, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 947, 1994 WL 45016 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On this appeal from convictions and sentences for armed robbery, armed kidnapping and armed burglary of a conveyance, we reject the only point directed to the trial. In our view, the isolated reference in the assistant state attorney’s opening statement to the fact that the investigating officer

got a bunch of pictures from a Metro-Dade robbery detective and presented [the victim] with a stack of forty-five or fifty pictures

did not prejudicially convey to the jury that the defendant — whose picture was included— “has committed prior crimes or has previously been in trouble with the police,” Moore v. State, 418 So.2d 435, 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), so as to require a new trial. See Fuster v. State, 480 So.2d 173 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); see also State v. Rucker, 330 So.2d 470 (Fla.1976); Loftin v. State, 273 So.2d 70 (Fla.1973); D’Anna v. State, 453 So.2d 151 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Mancebo v. State, 350 So.2d 1098 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 359 So.2d 1217 (Fla.1978).

The state properly concedes that Lee was improperly convicted of unlawful display of a firearm during the commission of a felony, in addition to the enhancement of his other offenses because the same firearm had been used. Hence, that conviction — as to count IV of the information — is vacated. Cleveland v. State, 587 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1991).

Affirmed in part, vacated in part.

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

PER CURIAM.

On this appeal from convictions and sentences for armed robbery, armed kidnapping and armed burglary of a conveyance, we reject the only point directed to the trial. In our view, the isolated reference in the assistant state attorney’s opening statement to the fact that the investigating officer

got a bunch of pictures from a Metro-Dade robbery detective and presented [the victim] with a stack of forty-five or fifty pictures

did not prejudicially convey to the jury that the defendant — whose picture was included— “has committed prior crimes or has previously been in trouble with the police,” Moore v. State, 418 So.2d 435, 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), so as to require a new trial. See Fuster v. State, 480 So.2d 173 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); see also State v. Rucker, 330 So.2d 470 (Fla.1976); Loftin v. State, 273 So.2d 70 (Fla.1973); D’Anna v. State, 453 So.2d 151 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Mancebo v. State, 350 So.2d 1098 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 359 So.2d 1217 (Fla.1978).

The state properly concedes that Lee was improperly convicted of unlawful display of a firearm during the commission of a felony, in addition to the enhancement of his other offenses because the same firearm had been used. Hence, that conviction — as to count IV of the information — is vacated. Cleveland v. State, 587 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1991).

Affirmed in part, vacated in part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

632 So. 2d 186, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 947, 1994 WL 45016, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-state-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack