DAVID SINGLETON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
David Singleton was convicted of three heroin-related charges arising from a single transaction and sentenced as a habitual offender with probation conditions including warrantless search provisions. The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding no Williams Rule violation in the admitted testimony and deferring other issues that were not properly raised at trial.
The appellate court held that the testimony did not violate the Williams Rule and affirmed the judgments and sentences without prejudice to the appellant to properly raise other issues before the trial court.
[1] Testimony regarding a defendant's prior statements about selling drugs in a different location is admissible under the Williams Rule when it demonstrates motive, intent,…
[2] A trial court's failure to make statutory findings before imposing an enhanced penalty under the habitual offender statute renders the sentence invalid.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The testimony that was objected to as a Williams Rule violation was that the appellant had told the state witness that the appellant lived in Miami and came to Titus-ville to sell heroin and that while in Titus-ville he stayed at the apartment where the sale was supposed to have occurred. We do not think this testimony contravened Williams.”
The court's holding that the challenged testimony did not violate the Williams Rule regarding evidence of prior acts or crimes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was charged with possession of heroin, possession with intent to sell, and sale of heroin, all arising from the same transaction. At trial, …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Williams Rule Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
Appellant was charged with possession of heroin,1 possession of heroin with intent to sell,2 and sale of heroin.3 All three counts arose from the same transaction of the same heroin. Appellant was tried and timely objected to the testimony of one of the state’s witnesses as a violation of the Williams Rule.4 Appellant was convicted of all three counts.5
The state sought an enhanced penalty pursuant to the habitual offender statute.6 Without setting forth any statutory findings,7 the trial court sentenced the appellant to an extended term which included a period of probation following the imprisonment. One of the conditions of that probation authorized any probation supervisor and any law enforcement officer to search the appellant, his vehicles, and his premises at any time.8
The testimony that was objected to as a Williams Rule violation was that the appellant had told the state witness that the appellant lived in Miami and came to Titus-ville to sell heroin and that while in Titus-ville he stayed at the apartment where the sale was supposed to have occurred. We do not think this testimony contravened Williams.
The other issues raised by this appeal have never been presented to the trial court to give the trial court an opportunity to rule upon them. Based upon the principles set forth in Smith v. State, 378 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Engel v. State, 353 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); and Noble v. State, 338 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), we affirm the judgments and sentences without prejudice to the appellant to properly raise the issues before the trial court.
AFFIRMED.
ORFINGER and SHARP, JJ., concur. . Section 893.13(l)(a)(l), Florida Statutes (1977).
. Section 893.13(l)(a)(l), Florida Statutes (1977).
. Section 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1977).
. Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959).
. See Wright v. State, 348 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) and Shaw v. State, 264 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972).
. Section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1977).
. See Eutsey v. State, 383 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 1980) and Bell v. State, 382 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
. See Grubbs v. State, 373 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 1979) and Wood v. State, 378 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Fredford James Eutsey v. State, 383 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 1980)
- Grubbs v. State, 373 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 1979)
- Smith v. State, 378 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Brinkley v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 353 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Wood v. State, 378 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Dewayne Frank Noble, III v. State, 338 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Losko Bell v. State, 382 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Temperance Wright v. State, 348 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Shaw v. State, 264 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)