JIRI BEREZOVSKY, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
WHEREAS, the judgment of this court was entered on May 18,1976 (335 So. 2d 592) affirming the judgment and sentence of the Circuit Court for Dade County, Florida, in the above styled cause; and WHEREAS, on review of this court’s judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida, by its opinion and judgment filed September 15, 1977, 350 So. 2d 80 and mandate now lodged in this court, affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded the cause for resentencing.
NOW, THEREFORE, It is Ordered that the mandate of this court heretofore issued in this cause on August 10, 1976 is withdrawn the judgment of this court filed in this cause on May 18, 1976, except as is affirmed by the judgment of the Supreme Court dated September 15, 1977, is vacated and the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is herewith made the opinion and judgment of this court. The judgment and sentence appealed from herein is reversed in part and affirmed in part and the cause is remanded to the trial court for resentencing consistent with the views expressed herein. Costs allowed shall be taxed in the trial court (Rule 3.16b Florida Appellate Rules).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Wilson v. State, 436 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 1983)…he trial court. Salvatore v. State, 366 So. 2d 745 (Fla.1978), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 885, 100 S.Ct. 177, 62 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979). A motion for mistrial should only be granted in cases of absolute legal necessity. Salvatore v. State; Flowers v. State, 351 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). There was no such necessity in the instant case. The record does not disclose that the prosecutor intentionally tried to create an impression in front of the jury of appellant’s arrest for other crimes; in fact, the record bespea…
-
Rodriguez v. State, 436 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…direct examination of the state’s chief witness and based on certain comments made by the prosecuting attorney in final argument. We find the subject testimony and comments insufficient to warrant a mistrial in this case. See e.g., Flowers v. State, 351 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Hinton v. State, 347 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 354 So. 2d 981 (Fla.1977); Thompson v. State, 318 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). Finally, it is urged that the trial court erred in giving á certain instruction to t…
-
Smith v. State, 365 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…termine whether prejudicial error appears. It is clear that a mistrial should be declared in the midst of a criminal trial only where there is an absolute legal necessity to stop the trial because of prejudice to the defendant. See Flowers v. State, 351 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), and cases cited therein. Under his first point, the defendant claims the prejudice to have been the admission of commissary slips showing his signature which could have been made only in jail. He, thereupon, argues that he was s…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jiri Berezovsky v. State, 335 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Jiri Berezovsky v. State, 350 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 1977)