MICHAEL BARYCHKO, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 1997-09-03
No. 95-2373
DELL and PARIENTE, JJ., concur., GROSS, J., concurs specially with opinion.
699 So. 2d 765 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1997) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s conviction and sentence without prejudice to appellant’s right to seek post-conviction relief pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.

AFFIRMED.

DELL and PARIENTE, JJ., concur. GROSS, J., concurs specially with opinion.

Concurrence
GROSS, Judge,

GROSS, Judge,

concurring.

I concur in the affirmance in this case. Appellant’s trial counsel did not preserve his objection to the seating of the alternate juror. The issue as to the use of the codefend-ant’s statement was well argued by appellate counsel. However, a close examination of the record demonstrates that the trial court carefully and correctly resolved this issue after an overnight recess and a chance to examine the transcript. Trial counsel opened the door to the use of the statement during his crossexamination. The prosecutor’s use of the statement during closing argument was not preserved by a timely objection and I do not find the error to be fundamental.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Barychko v. State, 837 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
    …, Derek Kozma. The jury found Barychko guilty of the lesser included offense of aggravated battery. He timely appealed to this court. We affirmed per curiam without prejudice to Barychko’s right to seek post-conviction relief. See Barychko v. State, 699 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Barychko promptly filed the instant rule 3.850 motion. He raised seven claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied all seven claims without a hearing. We have thoroughly reviewed the record to determine…
  • The Cadle Co. v. G & G Assocs., 741 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
    …PER CURIAM. This is an appeal of a non-final order of the trial court which had the effect of dissolving a writ of garnishment on two bank accounts. This court has jurisdiction. See Parl v. Parl, 699 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii). The Cadle Company (“Cadle”) obtained a Connecticut judgment against Peter Grieco and others which it domesticated in Florida. Cadle filed a motion for garnishment after judgment, seeking the is…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw