CHARLES E. HIGHTOWER, 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.
Charles Hightower appeals his robbery conviction and sentence. The court affirmed the conviction, finding the evidence sufficient and rejecting Hightower's challenges to the admission of impeachment evidence and his ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
The conviction is affirmed. The evidence was sufficient to support the guilty verdict. The proffered testimony was properly excluded because it was not genuinely inconsistent with trial testimony on material points and failed to challenge the witness's capacity. Ineffective assistance claims must be presented under Rule 3.850. The sentencing procedure was proper with adequate notice.
[1] A conviction is supported by the evidence when a victim positively identifies the defendant in photographic lineups and in court.
[2] Testimony is not admissible for impeachment purposes if it pertains to a collateral issue and is not inconsistent with the witness's trial testimony.
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“Hightower argues that the verdict is not supported by the evidence. This is wholly without merit.”
The court rejected Hightower's sufficiency of the evidence argument, finding the evidence clearly supported conviction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThree black males robbed a convenience store on November 16, 1981. One man struck the female clerk multiple times while his companions took the cash d…
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 Enhanced Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
Hightower appeals his conviction and sentence for robbery. We affirm.
During the evening of 16 November 1981, three black males entered a convenience store. After some shopping they approached the register. One of them struck the clerk. He then came around the counter and struck her several more times. His companions took the cash drawer and some cigarettes. The clerk positively identified Hightower as the man who hit her, both in photograph lineups and in court. She also identified his brother, Connie Hightower, as one of the participants.
A customer drove up as the robbers fled. He remembered two men and tentatively identified them as the Hightowers.
Connie Hightower, whose fingerprints were found on the cash drawer, testified that he and his brother and one Kenneth Brown committed the robbery. He admitted having told the police that a Willie Wong had participated instead of his brother. Connie denied having had psychiatric treatment.
Sam Hightower, the appellant’s father, proffered testimony that Connie told the Willie Wong version around the neighborhood. He also proffered testimony that Connie had seen a psychiatrist.
Hightower argues that the verdict is not supported by the evidence. This is wholly without merit.
He also argues that the proffered testimony was admissible to impeach Connie. Connie freely admitted changing his account of events. The proffer is not inconsistent with his trial testimony except as to the collateral issue of whom Connie told the Willie Wong version. No error was made in excluding this, Section 90.801(2), Florida Statutes (1981); Whaley v. State, 157 Fla. 593, 26 So. 2d 656 (1946).
A defendant may challenge the capacity of the witness against him, Cruz v. State, (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), Case No. AJ-349, opinion filed 14 April 1983; Morrell v. State, 335 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). The proffer in this case fails to challenge Connie’s capacity. No suggestion is made of any defect in Connie’s perception or memory. The bare assertion of psychiatric treatment does not call capacity into question.
Finally, Hightower has attempted to raise several issues pro se. Sufficiency of counsel must be presented to the trial court pursuant to Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. No error was apparent in the sentencing proceeding. The record clearly shows notice both to Hightower personally and to counsel of intent to seek enhanced sentencing.
AFFIRMED.
JOANOS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Arencibia v. State, 539 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…he issue during the trial, prior to the seven-year-old testifying, as to his competency to testify upon the following authority. See and compare Holmes v. State, 429 So. 2d 297 (Fla.1983); Bell v. State, 93 So. 2d 575 (Fla.1957); Hightower v. State, 431 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Davis v. State, 348 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Because this case must be retried, we note that the child was permitted to testify from another room via closed circuit television.1 In this connection we note the recent cas…
-
Amaya-Carris v. State, 444 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. United States v. Stewart, 579 F. 2d 356 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 936, 99 S.Ct. 332, 58 L.Ed.2d 332 (1978); Hightower v. State, 431 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).…
Authorities Cited
- Whaley v. State, 157 Fla. 593 (Fla. 1946)
- Truman P. Morrell v. State, 335 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)