JUAN ANTONIO SUAREZ, 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 held that the trial court erred in classifying robbery as a first-degree felony, but affirmed the other convictions and sentences.
Juan Antonio Suarez was convicted of burglary with an assault and robbery. He appealed his convictions and sentences, raising four issues.…
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 Substantial Likelihood Of Irreparable Misidentification cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Juan Antonio Suarez raises four issues on this appeal from his convictions and sentences for burglary with an assault and robbery.
We find no merit to Suarez’s first assertion that the pretrial identification procedure employed by the police was unduly suggestive. Indeed, even if it had been, on this record, we conclude that it would not have given rise to a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. See Grant v. State, 390 So. 2d 341, 343 (Fla.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 913, 101 S.Ct. 1987, 68 L.Ed.2d 303 (1981).
Next, we do not find that the trial court abused its discretion when it declined the jury’s request to have the victim’s testimony reread to them during their deliberations. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.410; Miller v. State, 605 So. 2d 492, 494-95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), review denied, 613 So. 2d 7 (Fla.1993).
As to his third issue on appeal, Suarez contends that he was denied a fair trial by certain improper remarks made by the prosecutor during closing arguments. We find, however, that this issue was not properly preserved for appellate review where no objection was lodged and we do not otherwise find such comments to rise to the level of fundamental error. See Ferguson v. State, 417 So. 2d 639, 641 (Fla.1982); Jones v. State, 666 So. 2d 995, 997 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).
Finally, we agree with Suarez’s final point on appeal that the trial court erred in classifying his adjudication for robbery as a first degree felony where robbery is in fact a second degree felony. § 812.13(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (1995). Accordingly, we remand this cause for the trial court to correct its adjudication on this count. See Westbrook v. State, 617 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).
Affirmed in part and remanded in part with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Isaac v. State, 29 So. 3d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…raised on appeal were not properly preserved for appellate review and/or do not rise to the level of fundamental error, we affirm the defendant’s convictions and sentence. See Simpson v. State, 3 So. 3d 1135, 1146 (Fla.2009); [*439] Suarez v. State, 694 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Ferguson v. State, 417 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 1982)
- Grant v. State, 390 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 1980)
- Delgado v. Israel, 451 U.S. 913 (U.S. 1981)
- Girardi v. Virginia, 451 U.S. 913 (U.S. 1981)
- Jones v. State, 666 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Poole v. C.F. Indus., Inc., 605 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Westbrook v. State, 617 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Lark v. State, 617 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)