GLENN TAYLOR, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1981-07-21
No. 79-2289
Before HENDRY, SCHWARTZ and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.
401 So. 2d 877 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1981) Negative Treatment
Cited by 10 cases
Topics
Preservation Of Error For Appeal Double Jeopardy

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Preservation Of Error For Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

No motion for mistrial having been made to the opening argument comment of the prosecutor, which Taylor now contends was objectionable, the suggested error of the comment was not properly preserved for our review. State v. Cumbie, 380 So. 2d 1031 (Fla.1980); Clark v. State, 363 So. 2d 331 (Fla.1978). We have reviewed Taylor’s other point on appeal and find it to be without merit. Although Taylor did not challenge on appeal the fact that he was sentenced, albeit concurrently, for both the crimes of robbery during the course of which defendant carried a firearm (Count One) and possession and display of that firearm during the commission of that robbery (Count Two), we reverse the sentence imposed on Count Two. Davis v. State, 392 So. 2d 947 (Fla.3d DCA 1981). See Gonzalez v. State, 392 So. 2d 334 (Fla.3d DCA 1981).

Taylor’s failure to raise any objection before or after the entry of the judgment adjudicating him guilty of both counts waives any claim of double jeopardy and precludes us from setting aside the conviction on Count Two. Williams v. State, 397 So. 2d 438 (Fla.3d DCA 1981). See Davis v. State, supra, at 949 n. 2.

The convictions are affirmed; the sentence imposed on Count Two is vacated.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Claro E. Guardado v. State, 562 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
    …ld that the effect of a defendant’s plea is to waive any claim of double jeopardy with respect to the convictions involved. Anderson v. State, 392 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); see Hines v. State, 401 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Taylor v. State, 401 So. 2d 877, 878 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Davis v. State, 392 So. 2d 947, 949 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); see also Peel v. State, 150 So. 2d 281, 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963), appeal dismissed, 168 So. 2d 147 (Fla.1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 986, 85 S.Ct. 1359, 14 L.Ed.2d…
  • Watson Grene v. State, 702 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
    …, 304, 52 S.Ct. 180, 182, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932). . We recede also from Mingo v. State, 680 So. 2d 1079, 1080 (Fla.3d DCA 1996); Marion v. State, 674 So. 2d 878, 879 (Fla.3d DCA 1996); Hines v. State, 401 So. 2d 878 (Fla.3d DCA 1981); Taylor v. State, 401 So. 2d 877, 878 (Fla.3d DCA 1981); Keefer v. State, 397 So. 2d 1181 (Fla.3d DCA 1981); Williams v. State, 397 So. 2d 438 (Fla.3d DCA 1981); and Thompson v. State, 368 So. 3d 670 (Fla.3d DCA 1979), to the extent that such cases set forth a similar holding.…
  • Novaton v. State, 610 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
    …that holding here. Challenge To Sentences Waived. The defendant, however, argues that a mere plea does not waive a challenge to dual or multiple sentences which are also precluded by the Cleveland rule. Guardado, 562 So. 2d at 696; Taylor v. State, 401 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Hines v. State, 401 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Anderson, 392 So. 2d at 328; Davis v. State, 392 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). While this observation is correct, the cases cited do not involve2 and therefore do not apply to t…

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw