FEDERICO MARULANDA, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1985-02-12
No. 84-403
Per Curiam
463 So. 2d 1224 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1985)

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.

Synopsis

The court affirmed convictions for trafficking in cocaine and carrying a concealed firearm but reversed the conviction for possession of cocaine under Bell v. State.


Holding

Convictions for trafficking in cocaine and carrying a concealed firearm are affirmed, but the conviction for possession of cocaine is reversed under Bell v. State.


Headnotes

[1] A conviction for possession of cocaine must be reversed under Bell v. …

Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Defendant was convicted of trafficking in cocaine, possession with intent to sell, manufacture or deliver cocaine, and carrying a concealed firearm.…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence for trafficking in cocaine; possession with intent to sell, manufacture or deliver cocaine; and carrying a concealed firearm.

It is contended by the defendant on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal, and in admitting hearsay testimony under the co-conspirator exception, and furthermore, that certain remarks of the prosecutor made in the closing argument to the jury were so prejudicial that defendant was denied a fair and impartial trial.

We have carefully considered these contentions in the light of the record, briefs and argument of counsel and have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated. Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120 (Fla.1981), aff'd, 457 U.S. 31, 102 S.Ct. 2211, 72 L.Ed.2d 652, (1982); Lynch v. State, 293 So. 2d 44 (Fla.1974); Muwwakil v. State, 435 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), pet. for rev. denied, 444 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1984); Tresvant v. State, 396 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 3d DCA), pet. for rev. denied, 408 So. 2d 1096 (Fla.1981); Lynn v. State, 395 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 1st DCA), pet. for rev. denied, 402 So. 2d 611 (Fla.1981); Boyd v. State, 389 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Ragin v. State, 348 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).

However, as to the judgment of conviction and sentence entered upon the count charging the defendant with possession of cocaine, we are compelled to reverse upon the authority of Bell v. State, 437 So. 2d 1057 (Fla.1983). Reyes v. State, 462 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw