Solorzano v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Solorzano v. State

835 So. 2d 374, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 960, 2003 WL 183395

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 29, 2003

DocketNo. 3D01-3262

StatusPublished

This text of 835 So. 2d 374 (Solorzano 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

Solorzano v. State, 835 So. 2d 374, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 960, 2003 WL 183395 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, defendant below, appeals his convictions claiming first, that the trial court abused its discretion in certain evi-dentiary rulings, and second, that the trial court erred in denying his motions for judgment of acquittal. We affirm.

The evidentiary rulings at issue, were not properly preserved for our review. See Correll v. State, 523 So.2d 562 (Fla.1988) (even when prior motion in limine has been denied, failure to object at time evidence introduced waives issue for appellate review). Even if they had been preserved, we find no error in the trial court’s rulings. See Griffin v. State, 639 So.2d 966, 968 (Fla.1994); Gorham v. State, 454 So.2d 556 (Fla.1984). See also Osborne v. State, 743 So.2d 602 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

Appellant also contends his motions for judgment of acquittal should have been granted. We disagree, finding that there was legally sufficient evidence on which to base verdicts of guilt in this case. See Crump v. State, 622 So.2d 963, 971 (Fla.1993); Tibbs v. State, 397 So.2d 1120 (Fla.1981).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, defendant below, appeals his convictions claiming first, that the trial court abused its discretion in certain evi-dentiary rulings, and second, that the trial court erred in denying his motions for judgment of acquittal. We affirm.

The evidentiary rulings at issue, were not properly preserved for our review. See Correll v. State, 523 So.2d 562 (Fla.1988) (even when prior motion in limine has been denied, failure to object at time evidence introduced waives issue for appellate review). Even if they had been preserved, we find no error in the trial court’s rulings. See Griffin v. State, 639 So.2d 966, 968 (Fla.1994); Gorham v. State, 454 So.2d 556 (Fla.1984). See also Osborne v. State, 743 So.2d 602 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

Appellant also contends his motions for judgment of acquittal should have been granted. We disagree, finding that there was legally sufficient evidence on which to base verdicts of guilt in this case. See Crump v. State, 622 So.2d 963, 971 (Fla.1993); Tibbs v. State, 397 So.2d 1120 (Fla.1981).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

835 So. 2d 374, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 960, 2003 WL 183395, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/solorzano-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack