Scott v. State
733 So. 2d 600, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 7873, 1999 WL 391585
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 16, 1999·No. No. 97-3086·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
Rejecting the appellant’s sole point on the merits, we conclude that the trial court properly denied him opening and closing because his attorney introduced an exhibit in evidence on his behalf. Crosby v. State, 90 Fla. 381, 106 So. 741 (1925); Grimsley v. State, 304 So.2d 493 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). Our ruling is specifically without prejudice to the filing of a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 claiming that counsel was constitutionally ineffective by doing so under the circumstances.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Scott v. State, 733 So. 2d 600, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 7873, 1999 WL 391585 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).
733 So. 2d 600 (Scott v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Martin v. Hickey
733 So. 2d 600 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)