DANIEL CANNON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1980-06-24
No. 79-1050
Before HUBBART, BASKIN and PEARSON, DANIEL, JJ.
384 So. 2d 970 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1980)

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.


Holding

The court held that the defendant waived the claim of an impermissibly suggestive pre-trial identification by failing to preserve it for review, and that the trial court did not err in failing to sentence under the Youthful Offender Act.


Facts & Procedural History

Daniel Cannon was convicted by a jury of robbery without a weapon and sentenced to seven years imprisonment and three years probation. He appealed his…

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
BASKIN, Judge.

BASKIN, Judge.

Daniel Cannon, found guilty by a jury of robbery without the use of a weapon, as charged, appeals his conviction and sentence to seven years imprisonment followed by three years probation. He claims error on two grounds. First, Cannon argues that an impermissibly suggestive pre-trial identification so tainted an in-court identification as to deprive him of a fair trial. Second, he contends that the trial court erred in failing to sentence him pursuant to the Florida Youthful Offender Act. § 958.011 et seq., Fla.Stat. (1979).

Error, if any, in permitting the victim’s in-court identification of the defendant was not properly preserved for review by this court, and was therefore waived. Douglas v. State, 328 So. 2d 18 (Fla.1976); Thomas v. State, 249 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971).

As to the appellant’s second point, the record presented upon appeal does not reflect error in the trial court's failure to sentence under the Youthful Offender Act. We affirm the conviction and sentence without prejudice to appellant’s future application to the trial court pursuant to Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Jenrette v. State, 373 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw