Per Curiam. I In his second proposition of law, appellant argues in essence that the trial court erred by denying his motion to sever Count Three of the indictment (i.e., the 1983 burglary charge) prior to trial. It is his essential contention that joinder of the 1983 burglary charge with the 1985 offenses was improper. At the outset it must be observed that “[t]he…
Read the full opinion (source) ↗
Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Citation figures are counts of later citing opinions in our corpus and may be incomplete; always read and Shepardize the full opinion before relying on it.