Rodriguez v. State

684 So. 2d 833, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 12456, 1996 WL 682220
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Rodriguez v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 650 So. 2d 1111
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 27, 1996·No. No. 95-495·Published

Opinion

GERSTEN, Judge.

Appellant, Roberto Rodriguez, appeals his robbery conviction claiming error in the denial of his motions for judgment of acquittal and new trial. We affirm.

The appellant’s defense attorney was a former assistant state attorney. Years ago, this attorney on one occasion substituted for the assigned prosecutor in a previous case of the appellant’s at a psychological evaluation hearing.

Subsequent to appellant’s trial, the defense attorney discovered and notified the trial court that he had made the brief appearance against the defendant at the previous hearing. The attorney stated that he did not remember the appearance until after the State showed him certified copies of the defendant’s prior convictions before sentencing.

Under these circumstances, we find no conflict exists. Appellant’s attorney had scant, non-substantial involvement in a previous and totally unrelated case. Prejudice is non-existent and any perception of prejudice is unfounded. See McCaskill v. State, 638 [834]*834So.2d 567 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); State v. King, 447 So.2d 395 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

Affirmed.

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

Rodriguez v. State, 684 So. 2d 833, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 12456, 1996 WL 682220 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

684 So. 2d 833 (Rodriguez v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McCaskill v. State
638 So. 2d 567 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
State v. King
447 So. 2d 395 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)