Case ID: so2d_557/html/0122-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James NEELY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 88-1657.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Feb. 13, 1990.
    Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Jonathan S. Schwartz, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Patricia Ann Ash, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
    Before NESBITT, COPE and GERSTEN, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

From the outset of the trial the defense brought forward the defendant’s explanation for his presence in the hotel at the time of the robbery. That distinguishes the present case from Bayshore v. State, 437 So.2d 198 (Fla.3d DCA 1983). The prosecutor’s remark in closing was fair comment upon the opening statement by the defense. See id. at 199.

Affirmed.