Mitz v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mitz v. State

110 So. 3d 969, 2013 WL 1316438, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 5345

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 3, 2013

DocketNo. 4D11-752

StatusPublished

This text of 110 So. 3d 969 (Mitz 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

Mitz v. State, 110 So. 3d 969, 2013 WL 1316438, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 5345 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals his convictions for burglary of a dwelling with an assault or battery, resisting an officer without violence, and sexual battery on a person twelve years of age or older and sentence of life in prison. Appellant raises two issues on appeal: whether the trial court committed fundamental error by instructing the jury on a theory allegedly not charged in the information and whether the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial based on a single reference to his membership in a gang, which the trial court instructed the jury to disregard. We find both issues to be without merit and therefore affirm.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, CIKLIN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals his convictions for burglary of a dwelling with an assault or battery, resisting an officer without violence, and sexual battery on a person twelve years of age or older and sentence of life in prison. Appellant raises two issues on appeal: whether the trial court committed fundamental error by instructing the jury on a theory allegedly not charged in the information and whether the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial based on a single reference to his membership in a gang, which the trial court instructed the jury to disregard. We find both issues to be without merit and therefore affirm.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, CIKLIN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 So. 3d 969, 2013 WL 1316438, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 5345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitz-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.