Orlando v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Orlando v. State

681 So. 2d 912, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 11115, 1996 WL 604462

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 23, 1996

DocketNo. 96-868

StatusPublished

This text of 681 So. 2d 912 (Orlando 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

Orlando v. State, 681 So. 2d 912, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 11115, 1996 WL 604462 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We find no merit in the defendant’s contentions that certain comments made by the prosecutor vitiated his entire trial and therefore affirm on the basis of § 59.041, Fla. Stat. (1995); Holton v. State, 573 So.2d 284 (Fla.1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 960, 111 S.Ct. 2275,114 L.Ed.2d 726 (1991); Duest v. State, 462 So.2d 446 (Fla.1985); Irving v. State, 627 So.2d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Hightower v. State, 592 So.2d 689 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Shaara v. State, 581 So.2d 1339 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

However, the state concedes error as to the defendant’s sentence for robbery, so we reverse that sentence and remand for resen-tencing in accord with section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1995).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

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

PER CURIAM.

We find no merit in the defendant’s contentions that certain comments made by the prosecutor vitiated his entire trial and therefore affirm on the basis of § 59.041, Fla. Stat. (1995); Holton v. State, 573 So.2d 284 (Fla.1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 960, 111 S.Ct. 2275,114 L.Ed.2d 726 (1991); Duest v. State, 462 So.2d 446 (Fla.1985); Irving v. State, 627 So.2d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Hightower v. State, 592 So.2d 689 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Shaara v. State, 581 So.2d 1339 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

However, the state concedes error as to the defendant’s sentence for robbery, so we reverse that sentence and remand for resen-tencing in accord with section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1995).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

681 So. 2d 912, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 11115, 1996 WL 604462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orlando-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack