JAMES CLYDE KISH, 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 the convictions, finding no merit in the appellant's presented points of error.
Appellant was convicted by a jury of breaking and entering a dwelling and robbery. His co-defendant's conviction was previously affirmed. Appellant ra…
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 Single Transaction Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, James Clyde Kish, with a co-defendant, Anthony F. Simon, was found guilty by a jury, adjudicated and sentenced for the crimes of (1) breaking and entering a dwelling house and assaulting persons lawfully therein, and (2) robbery. The appeal of Anthony F. Simon was considered and affirmed by this court. See Simon v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 195 So.2d 232.
On this appeal, Kish presents three points. The first point urges error upon the denial of an amended motion for new trial filed after the filing of the notice of appeal. This identical point was presented in Simon v. State, supra. We dismiss this contention upon authority of the Simon case and State ex rel. Faircloth v. District Court of Appeal, Third District, Fla.1966, 187 So.2d 890, cited therein.
Appellant’s second point is identical to the third point presented in Simon v. State, supra. It urges that the two counts upon which appellant was convicted and sentenced were facets or phases of the same, transaction. We do not accept this contention and affirm upon the authority of the Simon case, supra, and Steele v. Mayo, Fla. 1954, 72 So.2d 386, cited therein.
Appellant’s third point urges that he was unlawfully deprived of the right to opening argument at the close of all the evidence. The record affirmatively shows that appellant joined in a suggestion to the court that the arguments to the jury be conducted in the order in which they were heard. We dismiss this contention upon authority of Hall v. State, 119 Fla. 38, 160 So. 511 (1935); Lopez v. State, Fla.1953, 66 So.2d 807.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ciro Estevez v. State, 313 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1975)…this question. The District Court of Appeal, Third District, has consistently followed the controlling precedent as set out by this Court that breaking and entering and grand larceny or robbery are not facets of the same transaction. Kish v. State, 198 So. 2d 639 (Fla.App. 3, 1967), Nesmith v. State, 290 So. 2d 508 (Fla.App. 3; 1974). See also decisions of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, in State v. Conrad, 243 So. 2d 174 (Fla.App. 4, 1971), and White v. State, 274 So. 2d 6 (Fla.App. 4, 1974).…
-
Ciro Estevez v. State, 290 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…State v. Lott, Fla. 1973; 286 So. 2d 565. In our view convictions for the two offenses mentioned properly may lead to separate sentences therefor, and we affirm the sentences on authority of Steele v. Mayo, supra. See Kish v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 198 So. 2d 639.…
-
Wade v. Louie L. Wainwright, 266 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)…that following the robbery, [*379] in which Wade employed the use of a pistol, he proceeded to pistol whip his victim about the head and then to kick him in the eye. Such conduct constituted the separate offense of aggravated assault. Kish v. State, 198 So. 2d 639 (Fla.App.1967). Wade further charges prejudicial error relating to the argument of the prosecuting attorney. The argument complained of was fair comment based upon the evidence in this case. One who commits crimes of violence may not in reason expe…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hall v. State, 119 Fla. 38 (Fla. 1935)
- Steele v. Mayo, 72 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1954)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Earl Faircloth v. The Dist. Court OF Appeal, 187 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 1966)
- Lopez v. State, 66 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1953)
- Baskin v. Klemm, 118 Fla. 662 (Fla. 1935)
- Simon v. State, 195 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)