CRESS JOSEPH WALKER, 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's conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and that his procedural arguments lacked merit.
The defendant was convicted of robbery. He appealed, arguing insufficient evidence, denial of closing argument, ineffective counsel, and newly discove…
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 Right To Closing Argument cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant, Cress Joseph Walker, has appealed from his judgment of conviction for the crime of robbery.
He asserts that there is insufficient evidence to support the guilty verdict. An examination of the record reveals that there was sufficient, competent evidence to sustain the guilty verdict entered by the trial judge. See Kraai v. State, Fla.App.1967, 200 So.2d 267; Jones v. State, Fla. App.1966, 192 So.2d 285; Spataro v. State, Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 873; and Bass v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 614.
The defendant seeks reversal on the ground that the trial judge deprived him of the opportunity to properly proceed and to a final closing argument. This argument is without merit inasmuch as there was no timely or proper objection lodged in the trial court. Hall v. State, 119 Fla. 38, 160 So. 511 (1935); and Willoughby v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 10.
The defendant also argues that he was denied his right to effective, competent counsel in the trial court. The State responds to this argument by pointing out that the defendant failed to raise this point by any assignment of error. The assignments of error filed herein do not reflect an assignment which would support this point on appeal. We are not authorized to consider error, except fundamental, unless it is the basis of an assignment of error. See Mortellaro v. State, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 815; Belger v. State, Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 574.
Defendant claims that he has discovered new evidence subsequent to the filing of his brief and that this constitutes sufficient grounds for reversal and for a new trial. There is no indication in the record on appeal that the defendant made a motion for a new trial in the trial court. We also find that the “newly discovered evidence” could have been discovered before the trial ended by the exercise of due diligence. This does not, therefore, constitute sufficient grounds for reversal. 23 Fla.Jur. New Trial § 64. The judgment herein appealed be and the same is, therefore, '
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gates v. State, 328 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Walker v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 222 So. 2d 61; O’Berry v. Wainwright, Fla.App.1974, 300 So. 2d 740; Rule 3.153, RCrP; Rule 6.7g, F.A.R.…
-
Smith v. State, 256 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed on the authority of Crum v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d24; Loprince v. State, Fla.App.1969, 218 So. 2d 212; Walker v. State, Fla.App.1969, 222 So. 2d 61; Harrison v. Wainwright, Fla.App.1971, 243 So. 2d 427; Miller v. State, Fla.App. 1971, 246 So. 2d 169; Thomas v. State, Fla. App.1971, 249 So. 2d 510.…
-
Jackson v. State, 267 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See: State v. Sebastian, Fla.1965, 171 So. 2d 893; Walker v. State, [*87] Fla.App.1969, 222 So. 2d 61; Richardson v. State, Fla.App.1971, 248 So. 2d 530; Thomas v. State, Fla.App.1971, 249 So. 2d 510; Ford v. State, Fla.App.1971, 251 So. 2d 562; State ex rel. Hanks v. Goodman, Fla. 1971, 253 So. 2d 129.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Spataro v. State, 179 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Esaw Jones v. State, 192 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Hall v. State, 119 Fla. 38 (Fla. 1935)
- Bass v. State, 172 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Grady Allen Belger v. State, 171 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)
- Willoughby v. State, 203 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Baskin v. Klemm, 118 Fla. 662 (Fla. 1935)
- Mortellaro v. State, 72 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 1954)
- U. S. Fid. & Guar. Co. & Keller Metal Prods. v. Maldonado, 200 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Kraai v. State, 200 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)