Kish v. State
| Decision Date | 09 May 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 66--396,66--396 |
| Citation | 198 So.2d 639 |
| Parties | James Clyde KISH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Lynch, Quick & Christmas, Miami, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Barry N. Semet, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before HENDRY, C.J., and PEARSON and CHARLES CARROLL, JJ.
The appellant, James Clyde Kish, with a co-defendant, Anthony F. Simon, was found guilty by a jury, adjudicated and sentenced for the crimes of (1) breaking and entering a dwelling house and assaulting persons lawfully therein, and (2) robbery. The appeal of Anthony F. Simon was considered and affirmed by this court. See Simon v. State, Fla.App.1967, 195 So.2d 232.
On this appeal, Kish presents three points. The first point urges error upon the denial of an amended motion for new trial filed after the filing of the notice of appeal. This identical point was presented in Simon v. State, supra. We dismiss this contention upon authority of the Simon case and State ex rel. Faircloth v. District Court of Appeal, Third District, Fla.1966, 187 So.2d 890, cited therein.
Appellant's second point is identical to the third point presented in Simon v. State, supra. It urges that the two counts upon which appellant was convicted and sentenced were facets or phases of the same transaction. We do not accept this contention and affirm upon the authority of the Simon case, supra, and Steele v. Mayo, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 386, cited therein.
Appellant's third point urges that he was unlawfully deprived of the right to opening argument at the close of all the evidence. The record affirmatively shows that appellant joined in a suggestion to the court that the arguments to the jury be conducted in the order in which they were heard. We dismiss this contention upon authority of Hall v. State, 119 Fla. 38, 160 So. 511 (1935); Lopez v. State, Fla.1953, 66 So.2d 807.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estevez v. State
...precedent as set out by this Court that breaking and entering and grand larceny or robbery are not facets of the same transaction. Kish v. State, 198 So.2d 639 (Fla.App. 3, 1967), Nesmith v. State, 290 So.2d 508 (Fla.App. 3, 1974). See also decisions of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth ......
-
Meeks v. State, 73--334
...crime. Closely in point is Tarpley v. State, Fla.App.1972, 258 So.2d 301, and see Steele v. Mayo, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 386; Kish v. State, Fla.App.1967, 198 So.2d 639; Green v. State, 134 Fla. 216, 183 So. For the reasons stated, the judgment and sentences are affirmed, subject to the outcome......
-
Olmetti v. State
...v. State, 160 Fla. 593, 36 So.2d 201; Younghans v. State, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 31; State v. Bruno, Fla.1958, 107 So.2d 9; Kish v. State, Fla.App.1967, 198 So.2d 639; State v. Smith, Fla.1970, 240 So.2d 807; State v. West, Fla.App.1972, 262 So.2d 457; Machin v. State, Fla.App.1972, 270 So.......
-
Nesmith v. State, 73-1025
...JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Green v. State, 134 Fla. 216, 183 So. 728; Steele v. Mayo, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 386; Kish v. State, Fla.App.1967, 198 So.2d 639; Tarpley v. State, Fla.App.1972, 258 So.2d 301; Meeks v. State, Fla.App.1974, 289 So.2d ...