Legal Opinion

Arrebola v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided May 10, 2000No. 3D99-2954Published

1Per curiam

As we cannot conclude that the challenged remarks made by the state during its closing arguments in this trial were fundamentally erroneous as urged by the appellant, we affirm his conviction and sentence for burglary of an unoccupied structure. See McDonald v. State, 743 So.2d 501 (Fla.1999); Sandoval v. State, 689 So.2d 1258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).

Affirm.

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. McDonald v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1999
  2. Sandoval v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1997