Perdomo v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Perdomo v. State

458 So. 2d 66, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2281, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15655

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 30, 1984

DocketNo. 83-1610

StatusPublished

This text of 458 So. 2d 66 (Perdomo 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

Perdomo v. State, 458 So. 2d 66, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2281, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15655 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was charged with armed robbery of an automobile and certain jewelry. He was duly convicted. He complains that he did not have a firearm when the jewelry was taken from the victim and therefore he should not receive a minimum-mandatory three-year-sentence. This may be correct as to the jewelry, but he had a firearm when the victim’s automobile was taken. This was part of the charge of armed robbery contained in the information.

The defendant had two defense counsel. The trial court refused to permit a witness to be examined on recross by a second attorney.

We find no error in either instance and affirm. Jacobs v. State, 396 So.2d 713 (Fla.1981); Baggett v. State, 424 So.2d 99 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

Affirmed.

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