Barychko v. State

Florida District Courts of Appeal
Barychko v. State, 699 So. 2d 765 (1997)
1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 10100; 1997 WL 536997
Dell, Gross, Pariente

Barychko v. State

Concurring Opinion

GROSS, Judge,

concurring.

I concur in the affirmance in this case. Appellant’s trial counsel did not preserve his objection to the seating of the alternate juror. The issue as to the use of the codefend-ant’s statement was well argued by appellate counsel. However, a close examination of the record demonstrates that the trial court carefully and correctly resolved this issue after an overnight recess and a chance to examine the transcript. Trial counsel opened the door to the use of the statement during his crossexamination. The prosecutor’s use of the statement during closing argument was not preserved by a timely objection and I do not find the error to be fundamental.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s conviction and sentence without prejudice to appellant’s right to seek post-conviction relief pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.

AFFIRMED.

DELL and PARIENTE, JJ., concur. GROSS, J., concurs specially with opinion.

Reference

Full Case Name
Michael BARYCHKO v. STATE of Florida
Cited By
1 case
Status
Published