Case ID: so2d_541/html/0798-01.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

Richard L. TROMBLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 88-0662.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    April 26, 1989.
    Harry Gulkin of Harry Gulkin, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Alfonso M. Saldana, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

As to the admissibility of the tape recordings, we affirm upon the authority of Odum v. State, 403 So.2d 936 (Fla.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 925, 102 S.Ct.1970, 72 L.Ed.2d 440 (1982), Tumulty v. State, 489 So.2d 150 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), and section 934.03(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1985).

As to the admissibility of the “battered woman syndrome” evidence, we affirm upon the authority of Kruse v. State, 483 So.2d 1383 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), rev. dismissed, 507 So.2d 588 (Fla.1987), Terry v. State, 467 So.2d 761, 764 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), rev. denied, 476 So.2d 675 (Fla.1985), and State v. Ciskie, 110 Wash.2d 263, 268, 751 P.2d 1165, 1170 (1988).

As to the imposition of consecutive sentences, we affirm upon the authority of Murray v. State, 491 So.2d 1120 (Fla.1986).

ANSTEAD, LETTS and GARRETT, JJ., concur.