STATE OF FLORIDA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
VIVIAN MCCORMICK, DEFENDANT
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 dissenting opinion argues that the admission of a defendant's post-arrest silence, coupled with an assertion of the right to counsel, was not properly preserved for appellate review and did not constitute fundamental error, thus the conviction should be affirmed.
The dissenting judge would affirm the conviction, holding that the alleged error regarding the admission of the defendant's post-arrest silence was not fundamental and was not properly preserved for appellate review.
The case involves a defendant's conviction where the admissibility of evidence concerning his post-arrest silence and assertion of the right to counse…
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.
PER CURIAM.
The trial court has certified the following question to us:
“Whether the use of the object in question must produce great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement resulting from an assault and battery to sustain the burden of proof under Florida Statute 784.045(l)(b). If the State must show these elements and cannot, would it not be a simple assault and battery?”
Our answer to the above question would not be determinative of the cause and the question is not without controlling precedent in this State as required by Rule 4.6, Florida Appellate Rules. The certified question, therefore, must be denied. See Oglesby v. Powell, 318 So. 2d 406 (Fla.App. 1st 1975).
Certified question denied.
DOWNEY, C. J., and CROSS and MOORE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Windsor v. Crescent A. Migliaccio, 399 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…46 (1934); M.A. Kite Co. v. A.C. Samford, Inc., 130 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961). If the action is for breach of some other covenant, venue is proper in the county where that covenant was to be performed. American International Food Corp. v. Lesko, 358 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Ap-pellee in the instant case did not allege that appellant failed to make payments due or earned under the contract; rather, appellee alleges breach of a covenant to promote his invention. This cause of action accrued in Orange…
-
Speedling, Inc. v. Harold "Andy" Krig, 378 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)…ues for venue purposes where the breach of that contract occurs, and if a contract involves performance, the breach occurs where the defaulting party fails to perform an act that it has agreed to do. American International Food Corporation v. Lesko, 358 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Stanfield v. DeStefano, 300 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Williams v. Scholfield, 144 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962).1 According to the affidavit submitted by Speedling’s president, Speedling always made delivery of its products…
-
E. J. Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Se. First Nat'l Bank OF Miami, 415 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…s clear that the act which gave the bank the right to get the money back was its acquisition by the defendant. See also, St. Laurent v. Resort Marketing Associates, Inc., 399 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); American International Food Corp. v. Lesko, 358 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Since that took place in Orange County, that is where the claim “accrued” and where this action must therefore be maintained. The bank relies on cases which hold that an action for breach of an agreement to make payment accrues…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Oglesby v. Powell, 318 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Price v. Hewitt, 318 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)