CARLOS VAZQUEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 affirmed convictions and sentences for armed robbery and armed kidnapping, but remanded a probation revocation order for correction.
Defendant appealed convictions and sentences, and an order revoking probation. The appeal concerned closing arguments and a discrepancy between oral a…
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 Closing Argument cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Carlos Vazquez appeals his convictions and sentences for armed robbery and armed kidnapping. As to the claim of improper closing argument, we do not believe that the prosecutor’s rebuttal argument ran afoul of Clems v. State, 605 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). When read in its full context, the rebuttal argument was tailored to respond to the defense closing argument, and did not, as we view the record, materially mislead the jury as to the burden of proof in a criminal case.
The remaining points on appeal involve issues that either were not properly preserved for appellate review or do not, in our judgment, constitute reversible error. Consequently, the convictions and sentences are affirmed.
Defendant also appeals the order revoking his probation. Defendant asserts that the written order varies materially from the oral pronouncements, and that the revocation order must be amended to conform to the orally announced findings at the probation revocation hearing. The State does not dispute this point. Consequently, the probation revocation order is remanded to the trial court with directions to correct the order to conform to the court’s oral pronouncements at the time of the probation revocation proceeding.
Convictions and sentences affirmed; probation revocation order remanded for correction.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Austin v. State, 700 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…35 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). We note that the defense was not denying Appellant’s presence or that the communication had occurred. Neither do we interpret the state’s comments as misleading the jury as to the burden of proof. Vazquez v. State, 635 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). The state has a right, and even a duty, to respond to the defense’s suggestion. To ignore it gives it credence. Under the circumstances, the prosecutor’s comment was not improperly stated. The prosecutor made no mention of either…
-
Johnson v. State, 917 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…esponse as permissible comments on the evidence and a fair reply tailored to respond to the defense’s closing argument. See Stancle v. State, 854 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Mitchell v. State, 771 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Vazquez v. State, 635 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). It is well established that counsel is afforded wide latitude in making arguments to the jury, especially in response to opposing counsel’s improper comments. Schwarck v. State, 568 So. 2d 1326 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Viewed in cont…
-
Jackson v. State, 703 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…a. 4th DCA 1988). Additionally, we disagree with Jackson’s claim that certain comments by the prosecutor, regarding the truthfulness of the victim’s testimony, made during closing argument were improper. Following our decision in Vazquez v. State, 635 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), the comments were not improper as they were merely made in response to the defendant’s attack on the victim’s credibility and, in any case, the juiy was properly instructed by the trial court regarding the State’s burden of proof…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Clewis v. State, 605 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)