RICHARD W. MCCARTHY, APPELLANT,
v.
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 defendant's sentencing as a prison releasee reoffender was constitutional and that the prosecutor's comments during closing argument, while not exemplary, were not so egregious as to warrant a new trial.
The defendant was convicted of armed robbery, aggravated assault, petit theft, and resisting arrest with violence. He appealed his sentences and convi…
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 Improper Closing Argument cases and more on FLexlaw
CASANUEVA, Judge.
Mr. McCarthy raises two issues in this appeal from convictions and sentences for armed robbery, aggravated assault, petit theft, and resisting arrest with violence. He first contends that sentencing him as a prison releasee reoffender was unconstitutional and, second, that the trial court erred in failing to grant a new trial after allegedly improper closing argument by the State. We affirm.
The sentencing issue has been resolved adversely to Mr. McCarthy in State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla.2000). In Cotton, the Florida Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act, section 775.082(8), Florida Statutes (1997) (renumbered as section 775.082(9)(a)(l), by chapter 98-203, Laws of Florida).
Next, Mr. McCarthy complains of three comments the prosecutor made during closing argument. We are not required here to pass upon the prosecutor’s eloquence or lack thereof. Rather, we measure the comments against existing legal standards and in the context each was made. It is a long-standing rule that improper argument has no place in a criminal trial. See Palazon v. State, 711 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). To insure compliance with this rule, the supreme court has stated that prosecutors must refrain from inflammatory and abusive argument, maintain their objectivity, and behave in a professional manner. See Gore v. State, 719 So. 2d 1197, 1202 (Fla.1998). Here, none of the prosecutor’s comments is a contender for an eloquence award, but only one appears to be improper, as a comment on facts not in evidence, and we do not find it so egregious as to require a new trial.
Affirmed.
PATTERSON, C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kidd v. State, 855 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…ourt must disregard them.2 While we reach this point, we nevertheless affirm the trial court’s ruling. The comments were not so egregious as to merit a new trial and we find no abuse of discretion in denying Kidd a new trial. See McCarthy v. State, 773 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), rev. denied, 790 So. 2d 1105 (Fla.2001); Perez v. State, 750 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). With ? regard to the court’s designation of Kidd as a sexual predator, we conclude Kidd’s argument that he did not qualify for the desig…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 2000)
- Gore v. State, 719 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1998)
- Oswaldo Palazon v. State, 711 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)