Mack v. State

580 So. 2d 294, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 5772, 1991 WL 85554
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Mack v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 586 So. 2d 1266
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 22, 1991·No. No. 90-02460·Published

Opinion

HALL, Judge.

The appellant contends the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for grand theft of a firearm. The record reflects, however, that the appellant, who was representing himself, voluntarily absented himself from the trial court proceedings without leave of court. Consequently, the trial continued without him. Since no objections or motions relative to the sufficiency of the evidence were interposed until the case was appealed, the appellant cannot now raise the issue for review. See Mancini v. State, 273 So.2d 371 (Fla.1983), and Sanderson v. State, 390 So.2d 744 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1980).

Accordingly, the appellant’s conviction and sentence for grand theft of a firearm are affirmed.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.

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

Mack v. State, 580 So. 2d 294, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 5772, 1991 WL 85554 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

580 So. 2d 294 (Mack v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mancini v. State
273 So. 2d 371 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1973)
Sanderson v. State
390 So. 2d 744 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)