ORLANDO DOMINQUEZ, 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.
Orlando Dominguez appealed his conviction and sentence for escape. The Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, affirmed the conviction but reversed and remanded the sentence regarding credit for time served.
The court affirmed the conviction, finding no prejudice from jury knowledge of the underlying burglary conviction. The court reversed the sentence and remanded for correction to give defendant credit for 154 days of time served.
[1] Disclosure of the underlying crime for which a defendant was incarcerated at the time of an escape is not prejudicial when the fact of escape is undisputed and the defens…
[2] A written sentence must be corrected to reflect credit for time served when the oral pronouncement of sentence included such credit.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“There was never any question that defendant did in fact escape. He took the stand and admitted doing so.”
Establishes that the escape was undisputed and the defendant's defense was mitigation rather than denial of the underlying act.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant was incarcerated and escaped. He admitted the escape on the stand, claiming desperation to see his wife and children. At the time of escape,…
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 Escape cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals his conviction and sentence for escape. Defendant asserts error based upon Fouts v. State, 374 So. 2d 22 (Fla.2d DCA 1979), because the jury learned of the underlying crime for which defendant was incarcerated at the time of his escape. There was never any question that defendant did in fact escape. He took the stand and admitted doing so. The defense was that defendant was desperate to see his wife and children. During the defendant’s testimony, there was confusion about the number of crimes for which defendant had been sentenced. In any event, defendant testified he had been sentenced to some twenty years for numerous different crimes. Under these circumstances, there was certainly no prejudice to the defendant when the jury was advised that defendant had been sentenced for the single underlying crime of burglary. On appeal there was no argument asserting prejudice, and we conclude that under the circumstances of this case defendant may have been helped and was certainly not hurt by disclosure of the underlying crime.
Defendant also contends that the trial court erred in the written sentence by failing to give him credit for time served of 154 days to apply to the sentence from which he had escaped. Although the trial judge’s oral pronouncement of sentence was proper, the State concedes the written judgment and sentence provide no credit is to be given for time served. The matter is, therefore, remanded to the trial court with directions to vacate this aspect of the sentence and for correction of this error. Defendant need not be present at the proceedings upon this remand.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.
BERANEK and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur. ANSTEAD, J., concurs specially with opinion.
ANSTEAD, Judge,
specially concurring:
Although I agree with the majority’s assessment that any error committed by the trial judge in reading an amended information to the jury which contained an allegation as to appellant’s previous conviction of burglary was harmless, I think it is important to note that this court has previously rejected the holding of Fouts v. State, 374 So. 2d 22 (Fla.2d DCA 1979) as it applied to a prosecution for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. See Parker v. State, 389 So. 2d 336 (Fla.4th DCA 1980).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fouts v. State, 374 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Parker v. State, 389 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)