CARLTON O. DALEY, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the defendant waived his appellate contentions by failing to properly preserve them in the trial court.
[1] A defendant waives appellate review of a contention that the evidence was insufficient to establish his identity as the perpetrator of the crimes charged if he did not ra…
[2] A defendant waives appellate review of alleged error concerning the admissibility of a state's witness's testimony, which is contended to be a comment on the defendant's…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and robbery. He appealed, arguing the evidence was insufficient, a witness commented on his silence…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Comment On Defendant'S Failure To Testify cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant Carlton 0. Daley appeals from separate convictions and sentences for first degree murder and robbery entered against him in the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida. He contends on appeal that (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal in that the evidence at trial failed to establish beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt that he was the perpetrator of the crimes for which he was convicted, (2) reversible error resulted from a comment by a state’s witness which allegedly constituted a comment on the defendant’s failure to testify at trial, and (3) the trial court erred in excessively limiting the cross-examination of an important state’s witness. We reject these contentions and affirm.
It is clear from the record that the defendant in moving for judgment of acquittal at trial made no contention that the evidence was insufficient to establish his identity as the perpetrator of the crimes for which he was charged. As such, he has waived this contention for appellate review. DeLaCova v. State, 355 So. 2d 1227, 1230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Magueira v. State, 352 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); G. W. B. v. State, 340 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Moreover, our independent review of the record indicates that the evidence, although conflicting, was sufficient to send this case to the jury. Byrd v. State, 297 So. 2d 22, 25 (Fla.1974); Lynch v. State, 293 So. 2d 44 (Fla.1974); Wetherington v. State, 263 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972).
It is equally clear from the record that the defendant neither objected to nor moved for a mistrial based on the testimony given by a state’s witness at trial which it is now contended constitutes a comment on the defendant’s failure to testify. As such, the defendant has waived any objections concerning the admissibility of such testimony for appellate review. Clark v. State, 363 So. 2d 331 (Fla.1978). Finally, we find no improper limitation of the defendant’s cross-examination of any of the state’s witnesses. Baisden v. State, 203 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Estrada v. State, 400 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…ted as a motion for judgment of acquittal — consisted solely of an attack on the identification of the defendant and was in no way related to the criminal intent — aiding and abetting ground now asserted for the first time on appeal, Daley v. State, 374 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); G.W.B. v. State, 340 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), cert. denied, 348 So. 2d 948 (Fla.1977); (2) the state’s circumstantial evidence relevant to the defendant’s intent to participate in the subject aggravated assault as an aid…
-
Isom v. State, 387 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…State v. Belien, 379 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). The appellant also contends the evidence was insufficient to sustain the robbery conviction. We find no merit in this point. DeLaCova v. State, 355 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Daley v. State, 374 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Appellant next contends the trial court erred in revoking his probation. We find no merit in this contention, except in one particular hereinafter referred to. The affidavit of probation violation was re-filed after an original…
-
V. J. T. v. State, 390 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…ny event, is quite different from the contention now raised on appeal, based on State v. Hankins, 376 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979), that the state failed to establish the burglary element of an intent to commit an offense therein]. Daley v. State, 374 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Magueira v. State, 352 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); G. W. B. v. State, 340 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 348 So. 2d 948 (Fla.1977). Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lynch v. State, 293 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1974)
- Clark v. State, 363 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 1978)
- Byrd v. State, 297 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 1974)
- Baisden v. State, 203 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)
- Wetherington v. State, 263 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- G. W. B. v. State, 340 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- DE LA Cova v. State, 355 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Magueira v. State, 352 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Quintana v. State, 352 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)