Montero v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Montero v. State

734 So. 2d 1202, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 9074, 1999 WL 454403

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 7, 1999

DocketNo. 98-0514

StatusPublished

This text of 734 So. 2d 1202 (Montero 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

Montero v. State, 734 So. 2d 1202, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 9074, 1999 WL 454403 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s convictions for first degree murder, two counts of robbery with a firearm, and armed burglary. Even assuming that the police used an unnecessarily suggestive photo identification procedure, under the totality of the circumstances, the identification was reliable. See Green v. State, 641 So.2d 391 (Fla. 1994). The witness met defendant the day before the shooting. In addition, on the day of the shooting, the witness went shopping and spent the afternoon with defem dant and a co-defendant. Following the shooting, the witness rode with defendant in a car for 30 minutes. On the issue of the denial of defendant’s motion to suppress in-custody statements, this case is controlled by Sapp v. State, 690 So.2d 581 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 116, 139 L.Ed.2d 69 (1997). We find no error in the trial court’s refusal to give a jury instruction on circumstantial evidence and no error in the trial court’s admission of cellular phone records.

AFFIRMED.

GUNTHER, GROSS and HAZOURI, 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 first degree murder, two counts of robbery with a firearm, and armed burglary. Even assuming that the police used an unnecessarily suggestive photo identification procedure, under the totality of the circumstances, the identification was reliable. See Green v. State, 641 So.2d 391 (Fla. 1994). The witness met defendant the day before the shooting. In addition, on the day of the shooting, the witness went shopping and spent the afternoon with defem dant and a co-defendant. Following the shooting, the witness rode with defendant in a car for 30 minutes. On the issue of the denial of defendant’s motion to suppress in-custody statements, this case is controlled by Sapp v. State, 690 So.2d 581 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 116, 139 L.Ed.2d 69 (1997). We find no error in the trial court’s refusal to give a jury instruction on circumstantial evidence and no error in the trial court’s admission of cellular phone records.

AFFIRMED.

GUNTHER, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

734 So. 2d 1202, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 9074, 1999 WL 454403, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montero-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack