Case Name: Charles BREINES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1984-12-19
Citations: 462 So. 2d 831
Docket Number: No. 83-1936
Parties: Charles BREINES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: HERSEY, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 462
Pages: 831–832

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.