PEDRO JUAN ROSA, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1982-03-23
No. 81-711
Before SCHWARTZ, NESBITT and BASKIN, JJ.
412 So. 2d 891 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1982) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion of the Court
BASKIN, Judge.

BASKIN, Judge.

We reverse defendant Rosa’s conviction of second-degree murder upon our holding that the photograph of the deceased’s blood-spattered body, which depicted the results of emergency procedures performed after the stabbing, including protruding surgical tubes and sutures, was irrelevant. Dyken v. State, 89 So. 2d 866.(Fla.1956); Beagles v. State, 273 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); see Booker v. State, 397 So. 2d 910 (Fla.1981); Leach v. State, 132 So. 2d 329 (Fla.1962).

In addition, we find error in the trial court’s failure to state its reasons for retaining jurisdiction over defendant Rosa pursuant to section 947.16(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1979).

Defendant’s remaining point lacks merit.

Reversed and remanded.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Waggoner v. State, 800 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
    …hich had been ravaged by dogs and was in a severely decomposed condition, should not have been admitted; photographs had little or no relevance and gruesome nature of the photographs was caused by factors apart from the crime itself); Rosa v. State, 412 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (admission of photograph of the victim’s blood-splattered body, which depicted the results of emergency procedures performed after stabbing, including protruding surgical tubes and sutures was reversible error; photograph was irre…
  • Williams v. State, 435 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
    …ation with individual particularity” for retention of jurisdiction, or, if no such record now exists, to make one. On the record before us, the trial court’s retention of jurisdiction is unlawful, see § 947.16(3)(a), Fla.Stat. (1981); Rosa v. State, 412 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), and the motion unquestionably set forth a legal ground showing that the “sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack.” See Fla.R.Cr.P. 3.850. If, as we suspect, there was some proper basis for denying the motion, a good…
  • Lang v. State, 616 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
    …give it an opportunity to justify its retention of jurisdiction. See, e.g., Young v. State, 406 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Mathis v. State, 417 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Brisco v. State, 417 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Rosa v. State, 412 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Sanders v. State, 400 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Because the trial court modified the retention portion of the sentence within 60 days after the sentence had been entered, and, as appellant does not argue that the court’s r…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw