Lopez v. State, 555 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). · Go Syfert
Search
Lopez v. State, 555 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“language of concerning the mandatory fine neither equivocates nor gives discretion to the trial court”
30 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Delgado (fladistctapp, 1998-08-12)
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1990 2008 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) State v. Delgado
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1998 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
language of concerning the mandatory fine neither equivocates nor gives discretion to the trial court
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Richard Fred Francois v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
That said, “[i]n order for the prosecutor’s comments to merit a new trial, the comments must be of such a nature: (1) so as to deprive appellant of a fair trial; (2) materially contribute to his conviction; (3) be so harmful or fundamentally tainted so as to require a new trial; or (4) be so inflammatory that they might have influenced the jury to reach a more severe verdict than that which they would have reached otherwise.” Lopez v. State, 555 So. 2d 1298, 1299 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Kena R. Mease
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
See Plummer v. State, 121 So.3d 1129, 1130 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); State v. DeMille, 890 So.2d 454, 455 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); State v. Delgado, 717 So.2d 1053, 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Lopez v. State, 555 So.2d 1298, 1299 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); State v. Row, 478 So.2d 430, 431 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Demille
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
See State v. Couch, 600 So.2d 55, 55 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (holding that it is error not to impose the appropriate mandatory minimum sentence); State v. Delgado, 717 So.2d 1053, 1053-54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (holding that it is well settled that statutorily mandated fines must be imposed absent a stipulation by the State); Lopez v. State, 555 So.2d 1298, 1299 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (holding that the trial court must follow the statute and impose the mandatory fine).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Latras v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
Lopez v. State, 555 So.2d 1298, 1299 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (citations omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Pitts v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
See Jackson v. State, 662 So.2d 1369 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Lopez v. State, 555 So.2d 1298, 1299 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Spencer v. State
Fla. · 1994 · confidence medium
Blair v. State, 406 So.2d 1103, 1107 (Fla. 1981); Lopez v. State, 555 So.2d 1298, 1299 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
cited Cited "see" Marquez v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lopez v. State, 555 So.2d 1298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
cited Cited "see" Galiana v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lopez v. State, 555 So.2d 1298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
discussed Cited "see" Snow v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lopez v. State, 555 So.2d 1298, 1299 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (comments did not deprive appellant of a fair trial nor materially contribute to his conviction).
cited Cited "see" Newkirk v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lopez v. State, 555 So.2d 1298, 1299 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Reyes v. State, 700 So.2d 458 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); see also Batista v. State, 685 So.2d 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).
cited Cited "see" Cooper v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lopez v. State, 555 So.2d 1298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
cited Cited "see" State v. Keith
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lopez v. State, 555 So.2d 1298 (Fla.3d DCA 1990); Nova v. State, 439 So.2d 255 (Fla.3d DCA 1983).
cited Cited "see" Rodriguez v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lopez v. State, 555 So.2d 1298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Blaylock v. State, 537 So.2d 1103, 1108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), review denied, 547 So.2d 1209 (Fla.1989).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Farrell v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Lopez v. State, 555 So.2d 1298, 1299 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (In order for the prosecutor's comments to merit a new trial, the comments must be of such nature so as to materially contribute to the defendant's conviction or be so inflammatory that they might influence the jury to reach a more severe verdict than they would have reached otherwise.) The prosecutor's misstatements alluding to the "peter game" and "the sausage" pertained to testimony which, if admitted as substantive, would support a conviction of the charge of attempted sexual battery on a minor, specifically oral sex.
Antonio LOPEZ, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
88-1166.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Jan 23, 1990.
555 So. 2d 1298
Baskin, Levy and Gersten.
Cited by 27 opinions  |  Published

Kalisch & Lyons, and Scott T. Kalisch, Miami, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Jacqueline M. Valdespino, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BASKIN, LEVY and GERSTEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal and cross appeal from a conviction and sentence for trafficking and conspiracy to traffick in cocaine. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

[*1299] Appellant, Antonio Lopez, was arrested for trafficking and conspiracy to traffick after arranging for the sale, and participating in the delivery, of 1,784 grams of cocaine. Although appellant assigns a number of errors to the ensuing trial which resulted in his conviction, we find merit in only one.

We focus on appellant's contention that the prosecutor made a number of improper comments when he repeatedly referred to the appellant as a drug dealer who was lying on the stand:

"That's why you did this, because you are a drug dealer."
"Isn't it a fact that when he found out that you were a drug dealer, like he was supposed to, he immediately stopped the conversation about buying a car."
"... . neither would these two drug dealers be here but for these confidential sources ..."

In order for the prosecutor's comments to merit a new trial, the comments must be of such nature:

(1) so as to deprive appellant of a fair and impartial trial;
(2) materially contribute to his conviction;
(3) be so harmful or fundamentally tainted so as to require a new trial; or
(4) be so inflammatory that they might have influenced the jury to reach a more severe verdict than that which they would have reached otherwise.

See Blair v. State, 406 So.2d 1103 (Fla. 1981); Zamot v. State, 375 So.2d 881 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Smith v. State, 354 So.2d 477 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Oliva v. State, 346 So.2d 1066 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1010, 98 S.Ct. 719, 54 L.Ed.2d 752 (1978); James v. State, 334 So.2d 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Darden v. State, 329 So.2d 287 (Fla. 1976), cert. dismissed, 430 U.S. 704, 97 S.Ct. 1671, 51 L.Ed.2d 751 (1977).

A review of the record in the instant case reveals that the comments complained of, although improper, are not sufficiently egregious as to require reversal. Considering the totality of the evidence, these comments did not deprive appellant of a fair trial. See Darden v. State, 329 So.2d at 291.

The State cross appeals the court's failure to impose the statutorily mandated fine pursuant to section 893.135(1)(b)3., Florida Statutes (1987). Section 893.135(1)(b)3., Florida Statutes states:

(b) Any person who knowingly sells, purchases, manufactures, delivers, or brings into this state, or who is knowingly in actual or constructive possession of, 28 grams or more of cocaine as described in s. 893.03(2)(a)4. or of any mixture containing cocaine is guilty of a felony of the first degree, which felony shall be known as "trafficking in cocaine." If the quantity involved:
... .
3. Is 400 grams or more, such person shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 15 calendar years and to pay a fine of $250,000.

The language of the statute concerning the mandatory fine neither equivocates nor gives discretion to the trial court in imposing the $250,000 fine. Simply stated, the trial court must follow the statute and impose the mandatory fine. Rosa v. State, 508 So.2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA); review denied, 515 So.2d 230 (Fla. 1987). Here, the trial court failed to impose the $250,000 fine as part of appellant's sentence. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the imposition of the mandatory $250,000 fine.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.