Sikes v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sikes v. State

276 So. 2d 519, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 6950

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 27, 1973

DocketNo. 72-1120

StatusPublished

This text of 276 So. 2d 519 (Sikes 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

Sikes v. State, 276 So. 2d 519, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 6950 (Fla. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was informed against, tried before a jury and found guilty of receiving stolen property. By the order entered thereon the defendant was adjudged guilty, sentence was withheld and the defendant was placed on probation for a period of five years.

The defendant appealed, and contends the court erred by denying his motion for acquittal, and by refusing to grant a motion for mistrial for a remark of the prosecutor in closing argument which appellant claims constituted a comment on failure of the defendant to testify and therefore was fundamental error.

On consideration of appellant’s contentions in the light of the record, briefs and argument, we hold no reversible error has been shown. The motion for acquittal was properly denied. The conviction is supported by competent substantial evidence. Lett v. State, Fla.App.1965, 174 So.2d 568; Devlin v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So.2d 82. The remark made by the prosecutor was not one which reasonably could be regarded or construed to constitute a comment on failure of the defendant to testify in the cause on his own behalf. State v. Jones, Fla. 1967, 204 So.2d 515.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was informed against, tried before a jury and found guilty of receiving stolen property. By the order entered thereon the defendant was adjudged guilty, sentence was withheld and the defendant was placed on probation for a period of five years.

The defendant appealed, and contends the court erred by denying his motion for acquittal, and by refusing to grant a motion for mistrial for a remark of the prosecutor in closing argument which appellant claims constituted a comment on failure of the defendant to testify and therefore was fundamental error.

On consideration of appellant’s contentions in the light of the record, briefs and argument, we hold no reversible error has been shown. The motion for acquittal was properly denied. The conviction is supported by competent substantial evidence. Lett v. State, Fla.App.1965, 174 So.2d 568; Devlin v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So.2d 82. The remark made by the prosecutor was not one which reasonably could be regarded or construed to constitute a comment on failure of the defendant to testify in the cause on his own behalf. State v. Jones, Fla. 1967, 204 So.2d 515.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 So. 2d 519, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 6950, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sikes-v-state-fladistctapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack