Root v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Root v. State

445 So. 2d 377, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11601

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 31, 1984

DocketNo. 83-160

StatusPublished

This text of 445 So. 2d 377 (Root 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

Root v. State, 445 So. 2d 377, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11601 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The judgments of conviction and sentences under review are affirmed upon the following grounds: (1) the trial court committed no reversible error in failing to sever the two counts which were joined in the information [and in admitting evidence relevant on one count of the information] because (a) no motion for severance and no objection to the subject evidence was ever made below, (b) the defendant through counsel specifically waived his right to a severance in this case, and (c) no fundamental error otherwise appears on this record; Barbon-Zurita, v. State, 415 So.2d 824 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); State v. Cole, 413 So.2d 171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); (2) the evidence adduced below was sufficient to sustain the conviction for second degree murder, see Tibbs v. State, 397 So.2d 1120, 1123 (Fla.1981), cert. granted, 454 U.S. 963, 102 S.Ct. 502, 70 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981); Miller v. State, 328 So.2d 544 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); and (3) no reversible error was committed in denying a defense motion for mistrial because none of the complained-of prosecu-torial comments were so improper as to call for a mistrial. Breedlove v. State, 413 So.2d 1, 7 (Fla.1982), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 103 S.Ct. 184, 74 L.Ed.2d 149 (1982); Nevels v. State, 351 So.2d 762, 763 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The judgments of conviction and sentences under review are affirmed upon the following grounds: (1) the trial court committed no reversible error in failing to sever the two counts which were joined in the information [and in admitting evidence relevant on one count of the information] because (a) no motion for severance and no objection to the subject evidence was ever made below, (b) the defendant through counsel specifically waived his right to a severance in this case, and (c) no fundamental error otherwise appears on this record; Barbon-Zurita, v. State, 415 So.2d 824 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); State v. Cole, 413 So.2d 171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); (2) the evidence adduced below was sufficient to sustain the conviction for second degree murder, see Tibbs v. State, 397 So.2d 1120, 1123 (Fla.1981), cert. granted, 454 U.S. 963, 102 S.Ct. 502, 70 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981); Miller v. State, 328 So.2d 544 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); and (3) no reversible error was committed in denying a defense motion for mistrial because none of the complained-of prosecu-torial comments were so improper as to call for a mistrial. Breedlove v. State, 413 So.2d 1, 7 (Fla.1982), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 103 S.Ct. 184, 74 L.Ed.2d 149 (1982); Nevels v. State, 351 So.2d 762, 763 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

445 So. 2d 377, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11601, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/root-v-state-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack