Case Name: Bradley RANDAZZO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1992-05-06
Citations: 597 So. 2d 965
Docket Number: No. 90-1539
Parties: Bradley RANDAZZO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: STONE, WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 597
Pages: 965–966

Head Matter:
Bradley RANDAZZO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 90-1539.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
May 6, 1992.
Rehearing Denied June 12, 1992.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Mallorye Cunningham, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and James J. Carney, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. As to the issue regarding double jeopardy, the factual predicate for the prior convictions for dealing in stolen property and grand theft involved different conduct at different times than the armed robbery and first degree murder conviction which are the subject of this appeal. See United States v. Felix, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1377, 118 L.Ed.2d 25 (1992); McKinney v. State, 579 So.2d 80 (Fla.1991). Re- gar ding appellant's claim of lack of notice of the state's intent to proceed on a felony murder theory where the indictment charged premeditated murder, see Young v. State, 579 So.2d 721 (Fla.1991), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1198, 117 L.Ed.2d 438 (1992). As to the contention that the court erred in submitting a general verdict, see Haliburton v. State, 561 So.2d 248, 250 (Fla.1990), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 2910, 115 L.Ed.2d 1073 (1991). Finally, we find that any error in the introduction of hearsay testimony was harmless. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986).
STONE, WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.