Case Name: Wendell LEE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1984-09-11
Citations: 456 So. 2d 1211
Docket Number: No. 83-1313
Parties: Wendell LEE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before HENDRY, BARKDULL and BASKIN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 456
Pages: 1211–1212

Head Matter:
Wendell LEE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 83-1313.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Sept. 11, 1984.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 31, 1984.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Richard T. Preira, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Michael J. Neimand, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before HENDRY, BARKDULL and BASKIN, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was found guilty by a jury of armed robbery and sentenced by the trial court to thirty years imprisonment in the state penitentiary.
Appellant has appealed the judgment and sentence. The grounds relied on by appellant for reversal are: (1) the improper and prejudicial remarks of the prosecutor; (2) the court's admission into evidence of a prejudicial photograph from police files; and (3) the court's restriction upon defense counsel's closing argument and the limitation of his cross-examination of a state's witness.
An appellant, in an appeal in a criminal case, has the burden of showing that the trial proceedings were so infected with prejudicial error as to compel a reversal of the judgment. Such error must be clearly demonstrated by appellant.
The grounds relied on by appellant for reversal have been considered by us in the light of the record, briefs and arguments of counsel and we find that no reversible error has been shown. The record discloses that the verdict is supported by the evidence and that the several rulings of the trial court challenged by the appellant do not on the record constitute harmful error. Duncan v. State, 450 So.2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Betsy v. State, 368 So.2d 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
Therefore the judgment and sentence appealed are affirmed.
Affirmed.