Case ID: so2d_462/html/0831-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "RIYKIND, LEONARD, Associate Judge. LETTS, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Charles BREINES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 83-1936.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    Dec. 19, 1984.
    Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Feb. 27, 1985.
    
      Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Ellen Morris, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
    Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert L. Teitler, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
   RIYKIND, LEONARD, Associate Judge.

Appellant was convicted of drug trafficking. We conclude from a careful examination of the entire record that a decidedly improper remark by the prosecutor in summation “[Y]ou don’t need fingerprints when you have got eyewitnesses ... and I could have brought in five others ...,” was harmless error because of the overwhelming evidence against appellant. See State v. Murray, 443 So.2d 955 (Fla.1984).

The remaining point on appeal concerns the validity of the Florida trafficking statute, § 893.135, Fla. Stat. (1981). It is constitutional. State v. Werner, 402 So.2d 386 (Fla.1981). State v. Benitez, 395 So.2d 514 (Fla.1981).

Affirmed.

HERSEY, J., concurs.

LETTS, J., dissents with opinion.

LETTS, Judge,

dissenting.

I dissent, because I believe this decision may be in conflict with Thompson v. State, 318 So.2d 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). Moreover, I am far from convinced it was harmless error.