731 SO2D 712 - Dunbar v. State

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently August 2015

13 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

PER CURIAM.

¶1Robert Dunbar seeks review of his judgment and sentence in this burglary case. Because of procedural limitations, we are unable to address either of the issues raised by Dunbar on appeal. Affirmed.

¶2Dunbar challenges the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial, but defense counsel failed to make any motions for judgment of acquittal or for a new trial. Therefore, Dunbar has waived review of this issue. See Stanley v. State, 626 So.2d 1004, 1005 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Sundell v. State, 354 So.2d 409, 410 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).

¶3Dunbar also claims that the identification procedure used by law enforcement officers was fundamentally flawed. However, because defense counsel failed to object to the witnesses’ testimony regarding this identification, Dunbar has waived this issue as well. See Mustepher v. State, 419 So.2d 656, 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Lecoin v. State, 418 So.2d 336, 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

¶4Affirmed.

PARKER, C.J., and WHATLEY, J., and DANAHY, PAUL W., (Senior) Judge, Concur.