BENJAMIN ALFONSO HOLLAND, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed second-degree murder conviction and 99-year sentence, finding identification evidence overwhelming and sentencing procedure proper where trial counsel was permitted to present mitigation arguments on the record.
Identification evidence was sufficient and not tainted, and the trial judge properly conducted sentencing by allowing counsel to present mitigation arguments on the record.
[1] Trial counsel's failure to object or request permission to submit mitigation evidence at sentencing, combined with absence of assignment of error on appeal, precludes con…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was charged by information with second-degree murder, found guilty by jury, and sentenced to 99 years in state prison.…
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 Tainted Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was charged by information, found guilty by a jury, and adjudicated guilty of second degree murder. He was sentenced to ninety-nine years in the sfate prison. On this appeal the main thrust of appellant’s argument is that the identification testimony was either tainted or insufficient. We have reviewed the record and find that the evidence of identification was more than sufficient and may be said to be overwhelming. In addition, we find nothing in the record to even suggest that the testimony was tainted.
Although appellant has presented five points, the only remaining argument which is worthy of discussion is his contention that the sentencing procedure was improper because the trial judge failed to inquire about mitigation. Trial counsel for appellant was permitted to state fully into the record the matters which he would urge on mitigation. The trial judge did not prevent appellant from presenting evidence but merely indicated in his opinion the matters discussed would not affect the sentence. Appellant’s counsel did not object or request permission to make a tender of the evidence he now says he would like to have submitted. We think that appellant’s contention on appeal is in the nature of an after*516thought. This impression is reinforced and further discussion precluded by the fact that no assignment of error is directed to the alleged error.
Affirmed.