Perdomo v. State

458 So. 2d 66, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2281, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15655
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Perdomo v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 439 So. 2d 314
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 30, 1984·No. No. 83-1610·Published

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

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

458 So. 2d 66 (Perdomo v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jacobs v. State
396 So. 2d 713 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1981)
Baggett v. State
424 So. 2d 99 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)