JOHNNY LEE HALL, 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.
Johnny Lee Hall appeals his conviction for armed robbery, aggravated battery, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The court reverses due to two errors: the improper admission of evidence showing a prior robbery conviction and the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on attempted possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
The court affirmed the denial of the suppression motion and rejection of insufficiency of evidence arguments but reversed due to two errors: the improper disclosure of the nature of a prior robbery conviction to the jury and the failure to instruct on the lesser-included offense of attempted possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
[1] A founded suspicion justifies the stop of a vehicle and its occupants.
[2] Officers may search and seize items within and beneath a car based on observations at the scene and the activities of the occupants.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Disclosure of the nature of the prior conviction to the jury was unnecessary and undoubtedly prejudicial to the defendant.”
Establishes the improper admission of evidence showing the specific nature of Hall's prior robbery conviction when he was on trial for armed robbery
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHall was stopped in a vehicle and officers conducted a search based on founded suspicion and observations at the scene. The state introduced evidence …
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 Possession Of A Firearm By A Convicted Felon cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal is from appellant’s conviction of armed robbery, aggravated battery, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Four points are raised by appellant, two requiring reversal.
As to point one, we sustain the lower court’s denial of the motion to suppress. The officers had, at the time of the stop of the vehicle in which appellant was an occupant, a founded suspicion for stopping it. Cf. State v. Webb, 398 So. 2d 820 (Fla.1981). And, based upon the observations of the officers at the scene, and the activities of the occupants, the officers were then privileged to search and seize items within and beneath the car. Cf. Byrd v. State, 380 So. 2d 457 (Fla.1st DCA 1980), cert. den., 398 So. 2d 1352 (Fla.1981).
We also find appellant’s point relating to the insufficiency of the evidence without merit.
We agree, however, with appellant’s argument that the lower court erred in admitting into evidence an exhibit showing that appellant had previously been convicted of the felony of robbery, an offense for which appellant was then being tried. In order to establish that appellant had previously been convicted of a felony, the state, over objection, introduced into evidence a prior judgment and conviction of appellant for the crime of robbery. Disclosure of the nature of the prior conviction to the jury was unnecessary and undoubtedly prejudicial to the defendant. The state had introduced testimony of an attorney who had previously represented appellant on a felony charge. The attorney’s unrefuted testimony was that appellant had been convicted of a felony. If the state wished to corroborate that testimony by introducing the judgment and sentence, the nature of the crime should have been excised from the document. See Fouts v. State, 374 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). The prejudicial impact of disclosing to the jury a prior conviction for robbery when appellant was then being tried for armed robbery requires reversal.
Additionally, it was error for the trial court to fail to instruct the jury on the crime of attempted possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Attempted possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is an offense under the laws of Florida. Thorpe v. State, 377 So. 2d 221 (Fla.1st DCA 1979). When an attempt to commit the crime charged constitutes an offense under Florida law the trial court must instruct the jury on the subject of attempt. Brown v. State, 206 So. 2d 377 (Fla.1968).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ERVIN, SHAW and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Boston v. State, 411 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…uested attempt instruction. We accept appellant’s contention that under a logical extension of rulings by this and other courts in the state, the attempted possession of a weapon by a state prisoner must be recognized as a crime. See, Hall v. State, 400 So. 2d 102, (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Thorpe v. State, 377 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); and Porter v. State, 363 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1978), cert. den. 368 So. 2d 1372 (Fla.1979). We agree, however, with the state’s contention that the trial court denied the…
-
Vazquez v. State, 405 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…18 So. 2d 772 (1944); Clinton v. State, 143 Fla. 356, 196 So. 684 (1940); Coulson v. State, 110 Fla. 279, 149 So. 521 (1933); Timmons v. State, 97 Fla. 23, 119 So. 393 (1929); Ballard v. State, 96 Fla. 566, 119 So. 146 (1928). Contra, Hall v. State, 400 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). . “In the circumstances of this case we are impelled to conclude that denial of the defendant’s motion for severance of the offenses did not represent an abuse of discretion by the trial court.” [emphasis added] Panzavecchia v.…
-
McGEE v. State, 435 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…, we considered and rejected appellant’s argument that the trial court erred in failing to require the state to limit its proof under this standard. As for appellant’s contention that our decision conflicts with our prior decision in Hall v. State, 400 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), petition for review dismissed, 412 So. 2d 470 (Fla.1981), we first judicially notice certain facets of the procedural history of that case which are somewhat pertinent here, but nevertheless are not mentioned in the motion for r…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 206 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1968)
- State v. Webb, 398 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 1981)
- Fouts v. State, 374 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Brady Otis Byrd v. State, 380 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Thorpe v. State, 377 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Brady Otis Byrd v. State, 398 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 1981)
- THE Florida BAR v. Hartnett, 398 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 1981)