Williams v. State

435 So. 2d 863, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 21503
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 30, 1983·No. No. AO-211·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We do not reach the merits of appellant’s complaint concerning the testimony received on the subject of appellant’s prior sale of marijuana because, though the belated objection was sustained, no motion to strike was made. See Leonard v. State, 423 So.2d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). We find no other error in the record except that the judgment inadvertently adjudges appellant to be guilty of a violation of section 944.43, [864]*864Florida Statutes (1981), rather than section 944.47, which proscribes the offense laid in the information. The judgment is amended accordingly and as amended it is

AFFIRMED.

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C.J., and WENTWORTH and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

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

Williams v. State, 435 So. 2d 863, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 21503 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

435 So. 2d 863 (Williams v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Willie J. Sinclair v. Louie L. Wainwright and Jim Smith
814 F.2d 1516 (Eleventh Circuit, 1987)