LAZARO TEJERA, 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 did not err in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal and did not abuse its discretion in refusing a requested jury instruction on circumstantial evidence.
Appellant was convicted of armed robbery and armed burglary based on jury verdict. He appealed the conviction.…
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 Principal In The First Degree cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Lazaro Tejera, was convicted and sentenced as a principal for armed robbery and armed burglary pursuant to a jury verdict. He raises several issues on this appeal.
We first find no merit to Tejera’s assertion that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. We conclude that the circumstantial evidence adduced by the state sufficiently established a prima facie case of Tejera’s participation in the charged offenses as a principal. See § 777.011, Fla. Stat. (1997); Andrews v. State, 693 So. 2d 1138, 1140 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).
Next, Tejera maintains that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to give his requested instruction on circumstantial evidence. In In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 431 So. 2d 594 (Fla.1981), the supreme court found such an instruction to be unnecessary and deleted it from the standard instructions. See id. at 595; see also Rembert v. State, 445 So. 2d 337, 339 (Fla.1984). The court has said, however, that a trial court may give an instruction on circumstantial evidence, if in the court’s discretion, it finds it necessary due to the particular facts of any case. Id. In the instant case, the trial court did not deem it necessary to give such an instruction and we can find no abuse of discretion in its refusal to give such an instruction.
As to the remaining points on appeal, we find that they were not adequately preserved for our appellate review.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tranquille v. State, 747 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…r face. See State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla.1998). Our affirmance, however, is without prejudice to Tranquille raising this issue in a facially sufficient motion pursuant to rule 3.800 if he is able to do so. See, [*427] e.g., Garcia v. State, 732 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). BLUE, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- In re the USE BY the Trial Courts OF the Standard Jury Instructions IN Crim. Cases & the Standard Jury Instructions in Misdemeanor Cases, 431 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 1981)
- Rembert v. State, 445 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 1984)
- Myles Franklin Andrews v. State, 693 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)