From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wool v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Feb 1, 1989
537 So. 2d 630 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

Opinion

No. 88-37.

December 28, 1988. Rehearing Denied February 1, 1989.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Susan C. Bucklew, J.

Stephen J. Calvacca of Rumberger, Kirk, Caldwell, Cabaniss, Burke Wechsler, Orlando, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and David R. Gemmer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.


We affirm defendant's conviction for murder in the first degree. Contrary to defendant's contention, we conclude that the record contains sufficient evidence for the conviction to have been under the theory of either premeditated or felony murder.

Defendant also contends there was error in the trial court's refusal to instruct that the jury must unanimously agree upon the particular theory upon which a verdict of first degree murder is based. The alternate grounds of this contention are that without unanimity of that nature, first, there was no unanimous verdict as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.440, and, second, there was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment right of due process. We do not agree with this contention. See Buford v. State, 492 So.2d 355 (Fla. 1986); Brown v. State, 473 So.2d 1260 (Fla. 1985). See also Gorham v. State, 521 So.2d 1067, 1070 (Fla. 1988).

We do not conclude that defendant's final contention has merit.

Affirmed.

HALL and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Wool v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Feb 1, 1989
537 So. 2d 630 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)
Case details for

Wool v. State

Case Details

Full title:JOHN LEROY WOOL, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Feb 1, 1989

Citations

537 So. 2d 630 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)