JOSEPH LOUIS SCARPATI, 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.
Appellant Scarpati appeals his jury conviction for robbery, raising eight claims of trial error including alleged prosecutorial misconduct, evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and sentencing issues. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding that the alleged errors were either not properly preserved, did not constitute reversible error, or were harmless.
The appellate court found no reversible error in the trial proceedings. The alleged errors were either not properly preserved through timely objection, did not constitute actual error, or constituted only harmless error that did not warrant reversal of the conviction.
“We find no error in the trial proceedings and that the defendant was accorded a fair if not a perfect trial.”
Establishes the court's overall conclusion that despite claimed errors, the trial was fundamentally fair and no reversible error occurred.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceScarpati was charged with robbery. After the State completed its case, the defense moved for a directed verdict, which was denied. The defense then el…
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 Competency To Stand Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant seeks review of a jury verdict, judgment of conviction, and sentence thereon following an information charging him with robbery. He urges that the trial court erred in: (1) failing to grant a continuance made on the morning of the trial, (2) alleged improper comment by the prosecution in opening statement relative to a similar crime pattern, (3) failure to suppress certain evidence obtained at the time of the arrest, (4) failure of the trial court to strike certain unsolicited testimony given by a witness, (5) failure to grant a mistrial because of alleged inflammatory statements in closing argument, (6) that the trial court erred in its charge to the jury, (7) that the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant when it was alleged he was incompetent, and (8) that the trial court erred in failing to grant a motion for acquittal.
Following a review of this record which indicates that, after the State had completed its case, the defense moved for a directed verdict and after it was denied elected not to put on any evidence and submitted the cause to the jury. Following instructions, the jury retired and then returned to the courtroom to have certain evidence reviewed for them. We find no error in the trial proceedings and that the defendant was accorded a fair if not a perfect trial. Simpson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 211 So.2d 862; Zide v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 788; Lutwak v. United States, 344 U.S. 604, 73 S.Ct. 481, 97 L.Ed. 593.
The points raised by the appellant are inadequate for several reasons: either they were not preserved in the trial court by a proper objection or request to the trial judge, or the alleged errors in fact do not constitute an error or, at best, they would be merely harmless error under the following authorities: Albright v. State, Fla.App.1966, 191 So.2d 65; Williams v. State, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 654; Wells v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 203 So.2d 199; Green v. State, Fla.App.1966, 191 So.2d 607; Bega v. State, Fla.App.1958, 100 So.2d 455; Kearson v. State, 123 Fla. 324, 166 So. 832; Kersey v. State, 73 Fla. 832, 74 So. 983; Ward v. State, 75 Fla. 756, 79 So. 699; Morris v. State, 100 Fla. 850, 130 So. 582; § 924.33, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.; Brown v. State, Fla.1968, 206 So.2d 377; § 918.-10(3), Fla.Stat., F.S.A.; Rule 6.16(a), Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A.; Rule 1.740 (a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 33 F.S.A.; Weinshenker v. State, Fla.App.1969, 223 So.2d 561 (opinion filed February 25, 1969).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mack v. State, 270 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…ny of the alleged incidents of misconduct. Since the errors complained of by defendant are [*383] not fundamental they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Dickenson v. State, Fla.App. 1972, 261 So. 2d 561; Scarpati v. State, Fla.App.1969, 224 So. 2d 335; Mahone v. State, Fla.App.1969, 222 So. 2d 769; Worthington v. State, Fla.App.1966, 183 So. 2d 728. Accordingly, the judgment and sentence herein appealed is affirmed. Affirmed.…
-
Willie G. Banks v. State, 702 So. 2d 1381 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…(Fla.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 871, 97 S.Ct. 185, 50 L.Ed.2d 151 (1976); Hoyt v. State, 119 So. 2d 691 (Fla.1959), aff'd, 368 U.S. 57, 82 S.Ct. 159, 7 L.Ed.2d 118 (1961); Russell v. Wainwright, 266 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); Scarpati v. State, 224 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969), cert. denied, 234 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 1969), however, the point does not justify reversal. The other issues presented are similarly without merit. See Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 102 S.Ct. 2083, 72 L.Ed.2d 416 (1982); State v.…
-
Mauricio Rodriguez and Felipe Navarro v. State, 237 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…ime in evidence, it was done in front of the jury after the evidence had been previously identified before the jury. Therefore, we do not find this to be harmful error. Simpson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 211 So. 2d 862; Scarpati v. State, Fla.App.1969, 224 So. 2d 335; § 924.33, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the jury verdicts, judgments of conviction, and sentences thereon be and the same are hereby affirmed. Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (15 total)
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Lutwak v. United States, 344 U.S. 604 (U.S. 1953)
- Brown v. State, 206 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1968)
- Morris v. State, 100 Fla. 850 (Fla. 1930)
- Kersey v. State, 73 Fla. 832 (Fla. 1917)
- Kearson v. State, 123 Fla. 324 (Fla. 1936)
- Simpson v. State, 211 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Weinshenker v. State, 223 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Ward v. State, 75 Fla. 756 (Fla. 1918)
- Zide v. State, 212 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)