Jones v. State
Phillip Morris JONES v. STATE of Florida
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed.
On Rehearing
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING MANN, ROBERT T., Associate Judge.
Jones was not tried promptly, but there is no error in the record. Jones’ claim *713 that he was prejudiced because one witness to the robbery was unavailable at the time of trial would make sense if Jones had called the witness. He did not. In fact, Jones’ conviction of robbery on the positive identification of him by the principal victim would be lawful even if the trial had been prompt and the state had elected to proceed without the second witness. Compare this case with Vargas v. State, Fla.App.1971, 252 So.2d 586 , in which a defense witness was allegedly unavailable as a consequence of state delay. See also Dickey v. Florida, 1970, 398 U.S. 30 , 90 S.Ct. 1564 , 26 L.Ed.2d 26 .
Petition for rehearing denied.
REED, C. J., and OWEN, J., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.