Times v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Times v. State

563 So. 2d 1113, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 4718, 1990 WL 94147

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 3, 1990

DocketNo. 89-2608

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 563 So. 2d 1113 (Times 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

Times v. State, 563 So. 2d 1113, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 4718, 1990 WL 94147 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the defendant Horace Times from a judgment of conviction and sentence for grand theft of a television set. We affirm the final judgment of conviction and sentence under review upon a holding that any error in admitting the complained-of police testimony in violation of the rule stated in Postell v. State, 398 So.2d 851 (Fla.3d DCA), rev. denied, 411 So.2d 384 (Fla.1981) and its progeny, had no effect whatever on the verdict and was therefore harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given (a) the somewhat ambiguous nature of the offending testimony; (b) the defendant’s incriminating oral statements to the police implicating himself in the charged theft; (c) the defendant’s possession, when arrested, of the credit card which was used to effect the charged theft of the television set; (d) the identification of the defendant as one of the men who perpetrated the subject theft; and (e) the lack of any exonerating evidence adduced by the defendant at trial. We have not overlooked the defendant’s contrary arguments on appeal, but are not persuaded thereby. Pringle v. State, 553 So.2d 1304 (Fla.3d DCA 1989); McGriff v. State, 497 So.2d 1296 (Fla.3d DCA 1986), rev. denied, 506 So.2d 1042 (Fla.1987); Hill v. State, 459 So.2d 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the defendant Horace Times from a judgment of conviction and sentence for grand theft of a television set. We affirm the final judgment of conviction and sentence under review upon a holding that any error in admitting the complained-of police testimony in violation of the rule stated in Postell v. State, 398 So.2d 851 (Fla.3d DCA), rev. denied, 411 So.2d 384 (Fla.1981) and its progeny, had no effect whatever on the verdict and was therefore harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given (a) the somewhat ambiguous nature of the offending testimony; (b) the defendant’s incriminating oral statements to the police implicating himself in the charged theft; (c) the defendant’s possession, when arrested, of the credit card which was used to effect the charged theft of the television set; (d) the identification of the defendant as one of the men who perpetrated the subject theft; and (e) the lack of any exonerating evidence adduced by the defendant at trial. We have not overlooked the defendant’s contrary arguments on appeal, but are not persuaded thereby. Pringle v. State, 553 So.2d 1304 (Fla.3d DCA 1989); McGriff v. State, 497 So.2d 1296 (Fla.3d DCA 1986), rev. denied, 506 So.2d 1042 (Fla.1987); Hill v. State, 459 So.2d 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

563 So. 2d 1113, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 4718, 1990 WL 94147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/times-v-state-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack