LUIS ANTONIO JIMINEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Preservation Of Error For Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Luis Jiminez appeals his conviction and sentence for sexual battery on a child less than twelve years old. We conclude that the evidentiary issue raised on appeal was not preserved for appellate review by objection in the trial court. See Rodriguez v. State, 433 So. 2d 1273, 1275 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Assuming objection had been made, we think the admission of the child’s hearsay statements did not constitute unfair bolstering under the circumstances of this case, and would not have required exclusion under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1989). See generally State v. Pardo, 582 So. 2d 1225, 1228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Finally, assuming arguendo that any of the statements should have been excluded, any error was entirely harmless. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Parrish v. State, 780 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…have been sentenced as a habitual offender. This claim is procedurally barred. Defendant challenged his habitualization on direct appeal from his conviction, and the challenge to habitualization was rejected without discussion. See Parrish v. State, 589 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Defendant’s claim is time-barred as well. See Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.850(b). [*288] Assuming there were no procedural bar, the defendant’s claims are without merit. Relying on Whitehead v. State, 498 So. 2d 863 (Fla.1986), superseded b…
Authorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Isidro Rodriguez v. State, 433 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- State v. Jaimes Antonio Pardo, 582 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- State v. Brown, 582 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)