Porter v. State, 76-1162
| Decision Date | 28 June 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-1162,76-1162 |
| Parties | Jeff Lee PORTER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Elliot H. Scherker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Ira N. Loewy, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before HENDRY, C. J., and BARKDULL and NATHAN, JJ.
Appellant, defendant below, was charged by a two count information with (1) the sale or delivery of a controlled substance and (2) the possession of a controlled substance, both in violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1975). A jury found appellant guilty on both counts and he was sentenced to a term of six years imprisonment as to count one and five years imprisonment as to count two, to run concurrently with the sentence imposed in count one.
Appellant appeals his final judgment of conviction and sentence on two grounds. Appellant contents initially that the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial when, during closing argument, the prosecution offered "highly improper and prejudicial" comments which violated appellant's right to a fair trial.
Secondly, appellant contends that, pursuant to our decision in Orange v. State, 334 So.2d 277 (Fla.3d DCA 1976), the trial court erred in sentencing him to separate sentences for the offenses of sale and possession of the same controlled substance (heroin), where each of the two offenses was a facet of the same transaction. In that we reverse appellant's conviction on the basis of his first contention, we need not examine the latter.
During closing argument by the State, the following dialogue took place:
We believe that the State's admittedly improper remarks went beyond the scope of the issues being tried and were so highly prejudicial as to deprive appellant of his right to a fair trial. Neither the court's sustaining of app...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peterson v. State
...that the prosecutorial references to "pushers," much less to the "slime" in which they dwell, were entirely improper. Porter v. State, 347 So.2d 449 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); see also Glantz v. State, 343 So.2d 88 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Reed v. State, 333 So.2d 524 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Brown v. Stat......
-
Harris v. State
...(Fla.1967); Goddard v. State, 143 Fla. 28, 196 So. 596, 600 (1940); Sims v. State, 371 So.2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Porter v. State, 347 So.2d 449 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Thompson v. State, 318 So.2d 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Brown v. State, 284 So.2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Price v. State, 267......
-
Williams v. State, 82-436
...3d DCA 1982); McMillian v. State, 409 So.2d 197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Sims v. State, 371 So.2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Porter v. State, 347 So.2d 449 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Russell v. State, 233 So.2d 154 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970); Chavez v. State, 215 So.2d 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); Davis v. State, 214......
-
Green v. State, 88-2508
...of their community have been repeatedly disapproved, citing Ryan v. State, 457 So.2d 1084, 1085 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Porter v. State, 347 So.2d 449 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Reed v. State, 333 So.2d 524 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Knight v. State, 316 So.2d 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Breniser v. State, 26......