WILLIE MILTON BENTON, APPELLANT,
v.
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 stop of the vehicle was based on well-founded suspicion and that the failure to provide transcripts of the charge conference and closing argument was not reversible error.
Appellant was convicted of strong armed robbery and aiding and abetting an aggravated battery. He appealed the denial of his motion to quash arrest an…
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 Strong Arm Robbery cases and more on FLexlaw
McCORD, Judge.
Appellant appeals his conviction of strong armed robbery and aiding and abetting an aggravated battery. We affirm.
In his first point on appeal, appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to quash the arrest and to suppress evidence seized because the stop of the vehicle that he was driving was predicated upon mere suspicion, not well-founded suspicion or probable cause. We disagree. Under the facts of this case, the officers predicated their stop of appellant’s vehicle upon at least a well-founded suspicion.
In his second point, appellant contends that he is entitled to a new trial since transcripts of the charge conference and closing argument of counsel are not available for this Court to review. Appellant points to Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 2.070(a) and (b), which provide that all criminal proceedings required by law to be reported at public expense shall be reported and that when trial proceedings are being reported, no part of the proceedings shall be omitted unless all of the parties agree to do so and the court approves the agreement. As explained in Wilson v. State, (Fla. 1 DCA 1980) [1980 FLW 2155], we view Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.070 as directory and not mandatory. Because appellant has made no allegation of error occurring in the closing arguments or in the charge conference, no reversible error has been shown in the failure to report them.
AFFIRMED.
MILLS, C. J., and THOMPSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Loucks v. State, 471 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…any party. (b) Record. When trial proceedings are being reported, no part of the proceedings shall be omitted unless all of [*132] the parties agree to do so and the court approves the agreement. (emphasis added.) Appellee cites Benton v. State, 394 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981 and Wilson v. State, 403 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) as support for its contention that provision of a court reporter is a matter within the trial judge’s discretion. In Wilson, no party requested rec-ordation of the closing a…