Maloy v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Maloy v. State

937 So. 2d 311, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 15514, 2006 WL 2683306

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 20, 2006

DocketNo. 4D05-3409

StatusPublished

This text of 937 So. 2d 311 (Maloy 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

Maloy v. State, 937 So. 2d 311, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 15514, 2006 WL 2683306 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s convictions for tampering with evidence, possession of drug paraphernalia, and resisting an officer without violence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by disallowing appellant to display the inside of his mouth to a state witness during cross examination. Appellant did not seek to display the inside of his mouth to the jury once the state had rested. Therefore, appellant failed to preserve any objection by obtaining a definitive ruling on the issue of the closing argument “sandwich.” See Carratelli v. State, 832 So.2d 850, 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (stating that “[a] plethora of Florida cases support the notion that a party must obtain a ruling from the trial court in order to preserve an issue for appellate review”); Marin v. State, 624 So.2d 808 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (concerning a defendant’s right to open and close final argument). We also reject appellant’s claim on direct appeal that trial counsel provided him with ineffective assistance of counsel. See Dennis v. State, 696 So.2d 1280 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

WARNER, KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s convictions for tampering with evidence, possession of drug paraphernalia, and resisting an officer without violence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by disallowing appellant to display the inside of his mouth to a state witness during cross examination. Appellant did not seek to display the inside of his mouth to the jury once the state had rested. Therefore, appellant failed to preserve any objection by obtaining a definitive ruling on the issue of the closing argument “sandwich.” See Carratelli v. State, 832 So.2d 850, 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (stating that “[a] plethora of Florida cases support the notion that a party must obtain a ruling from the trial court in order to preserve an issue for appellate review”); Marin v. State, 624 So.2d 808 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (concerning a defendant’s right to open and close final argument). We also reject appellant’s claim on direct appeal that trial counsel provided him with ineffective assistance of counsel. See Dennis v. State, 696 So.2d 1280 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

WARNER, KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

937 So. 2d 311, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 15514, 2006 WL 2683306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maloy-v-state-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack