From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Perdomo v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Oct 30, 1984
458 So. 2d 66 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

Opinion

No. 83-1610.

October 30, 1984.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Richard Yale Feder, J.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and George T. Pallas, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Michael J. Neimand, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, NESBITT and JORGENSON, JJ.


The appellant was charged with armed robbery of an automobile and certain jewelry. He was duly convicted. He complains that he did not have a firearm when the jewelry was taken from the victim and therefore he should not receive a minimum-mandatory three-year-sentence. This may be correct as to the jewelry, but he had a firearm when the victim's automobile was taken. This was part of the charge of armed robbery contained in the information.

The defendant had two defense counsel. The trial court refused to permit a witness to be examined on recross by a second attorney.

We find no error in either instance and affirm. Jacobs v. State, 396 So.2d 713 (Fla. 1981); Baggett v. State, 424 So.2d 99 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Perdomo v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Oct 30, 1984
458 So. 2d 66 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)
Case details for

Perdomo v. State

Case Details

Full title:ANTONIO PERDOMO, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Oct 30, 1984

Citations

458 So. 2d 66 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)