LUIS A. VAZQUEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
LUIS A. VAZQUEZ, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
453 So. 2d 215
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1984)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
On remand,1 we find that sufficient evidence was presented below to support Vazquez’ conviction for assault. As to all remaining points raised, we likewise find no error and AFFIRM.
COBB, C.J., and FRANK D. UP-CHURCH, Jr. and SHARP, JJ., concur. . See Vazquez v. State, 427 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), quashed State v. Vazquez, 450 So. 2d 203 (Fla.1984).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eldred Oates v. State, 619 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…proceedings on closed circuit television. Defendant’s exclusion from the trial as a result of his behavior was proper, Nixon v. State, 572 So. 2d 1336 (Fla.1990), cert, denied, — U.S.-, 112 S.Ct. 164, 116 L.Ed.2d 128, (1991), and Shepherd v. State, 453 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 5th DCA1984), and has not been raised as an issue on this appeal. The next morning an article about this case appeared in the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, stating in part: Some days, a judge just can’t get any respect. On Wednesday, Browar…
-
Javarous Dawson v. State, 20 So. 3d 1016 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…. State, 872 So. 2d 388, 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), cited with approval in McDuffie, 970 So. 2d at 321 (stating that few rights are “more fundamental than the right of an accused to present witnesses in his or her own defense”). In Shepherd v. State, 453 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), the court held that exclusion of relevant argument and testimony regarding the defendant’s insanity defense was reversible error where the trial court failed to conduct a Richardson hearing, especially where the State presented…
-
Raphael Rosado v. State, 650 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…the conclusion of the trial. Where there is no prejudice to the state and the defendant’s failure to comply with the rules of procedure is merely a technical failure, exclusion of his only viable defense is too harsh a sanction. Shepherd v. State, 453 So. 2d 215, 217 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). This is particularly true when the state was aware of [*683] the potential defense before the notice was filed. See Morgan. We reverse the judgment against Rosado and remand for a new trial where he shall be permitted to ra…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Vazquez, 450 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 1984)
- Cochran v. State, 427 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Vazquez v. State, 427 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)