JOSEPH BAUM, 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 held that the trial court did not err in admitting expert testimony based on latent fingerprints and in imposing consecutive sentences for robbery and firearm possession arising from the same transaction.
Joseph Baum was convicted of two counts of robbery and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm during a felony. He was sentenced to consecutive …
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 Best Evidence Rule (Implied) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Joseph Baum was charged by information with two counts of robbery and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. He was tried by jury, found guilty, convicted and sentenced to consecutive terms of life imprisonment in the state penitentiary for each of the robbery charges, and fifteen years imprisonment for the charge of unlawful possession of a firearm. TWo points are raised on this appeal.
The first point is that the court erred in permitting an expert witness to give an opinion based on latent fingerprints where the original objects from which the latent fingerprints were lifted, were not produced in court. This contention is without merit and directly controlled by our recent decision in Butler v. State, 348 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Also see United States v. Sewar, 468 F. 2d 236 (9th Cir. 1972); United States v. Herndon, 536 F. 2d 1027 (5th Cir. 1976).
The second point is that the court erred in imposing separate consecutive sentences for robbery and for unlawful possession of a firearm, where both charges arose out of the same transaction. This sentencing question has been resolved adversely to the defendant. See Estevez v. State, 313 So. 2d 692 (Fla.1975); Swyers v. State, 334 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Johnson v. State, 338 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). No error having been demonstrated by the defendant, the judgment and sentence are
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. State, 360 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…s v. State, 164 So. 2d 817 (Fla.1964); Smith v. State, 305 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). This is especially true when the original object from which derivative evidence was adduced was not available to the state at the time of trial. Baum v. State, 353 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Butler v. State, 348 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Defendant nonetheless contends that this court’s decision in Johnson v. State, 249 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971), cert. dischgd., 280 So. 2d 673 (Fla.1973), controls the instan…
-
Sellars v. State, 362 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)…e of a firearm during the commission of a felony [Florida Statute § 790.07(2)], a felony of the second degree, as well as four counts of conspiracy to commit a felony [Florida Statute § 777.04(4)(b)]. On substantially similar facts in Baum v. State, 353 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), the court held: “Joseph Baum was charged by information with two counts of robbery and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. He was tried by jury, found guilty, convicted and sentenced…
Authorities Cited
- Ciro Estevez v. State, 313 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1975)
- United States v. Herndon, 536 F.2d 1027 (5th Cir. 1976)
- Johnson v. State, 338 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- United States v. Sewar, 468 F.2d 236 (9th Cir. 1972)
- Swyers v. State, 334 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Stepney v. State, 348 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Butler v. State, 348 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)