Telemaque v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Telemaque v. State

622 So. 2d 1174, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 8907, 1993 WL 331402

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 1, 1993

DocketNo. 92-0742

StatusPublished

This text of 622 So. 2d 1174 (Telemaque 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

Telemaque v. State, 622 So. 2d 1174, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 8907, 1993 WL 331402 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the appellant’s conviction and sentence. With respect to appellant’s claim that the trial court should have excluded a eodefendant’s taped statement, we have reviewed the record and based on Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 107 S.Ct. 1702, 95 L.Ed.2d 176 (1987), conclude that no error occurred. We likewise find no error in the remaining points raised. However, we note that as to appellant’s claim that there was affirmative prosecutorial misconduct in the misrepresentation of plea agreements with cooperating codefendants, this issue was not raised by appellant’s trial counsel before the lower court. Therefore, it has not been properly preserved for review.

Affirmed.

[1175]*1175GLICKSTEIN and WARNER, JJ., and WALDEN, JAMES H., Senior Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the appellant’s conviction and sentence. With respect to appellant’s claim that the trial court should have excluded a eodefendant’s taped statement, we have reviewed the record and based on Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 107 S.Ct. 1702, 95 L.Ed.2d 176 (1987), conclude that no error occurred. We likewise find no error in the remaining points raised. However, we note that as to appellant’s claim that there was affirmative prosecutorial misconduct in the misrepresentation of plea agreements with cooperating codefendants, this issue was not raised by appellant’s trial counsel before the lower court. Therefore, it has not been properly preserved for review.

Affirmed.

[1175]*1175GLICKSTEIN and WARNER, JJ., and WALDEN, JAMES H., Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

622 So. 2d 1174, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 8907, 1993 WL 331402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/telemaque-v-state-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack