CARLOS ENCINOSA, 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.
Appellant Encinosa was convicted of armed robbery and robbery with a firearm. On appeal, he challenged the trial court's failure to grant a mistrial based on mug shot testimony, the imposition of consecutive mandatory minimum sentences, and costs imposed against an insolvent defendant. The court affirmed the convictions but reversed the sentencing and struck the costs.
The court affirmed the convictions despite the mug shot reference, finding any error harmless given other competent identifying evidence and lack of jury prejudice. The court reversed the sentencing, holding that while consecutive mandatory minimum sentences are permissible under the statute, the decision to impose them consecutively or concurrently rests within judicial discretion, which the trial judge failed to exercise. The court struck all costs imposed against the insolvent defendant.
[1] A reference to a defendant's "mug shots" during a pretrial identification procedure does not automatically warrant reversal and may be harmless error if other competent e…
[2] A trial court's inquiry into whether jurors gave prejudicial consideration to "mug shots" or the term "mug shots" can cure potential error arising from such 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“Although references to "mug shots" of a defendant could constitute error, such error does not lead to automatic reversal and may be harmless if there was other competent evidence, as there was here, identifying defendant.”
Establishes the harmless error standard for mug shot references and why the conviction stood.
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 and convicted of armed robbery and robbery with a firearm based on a multiple count information. During trial, a state witn…
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 Robbery With A Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Judge.
Appellant was charged by a multiple count information with, and convicted of, armed robbery and robbery with a firearm. On appeal, appellant contends the trial court erred in (1) failing to grant a motion for mistrial made on grounds that the jury heard testimony from a witness for the state that the witness had looked at “mug shots” during a pretrial identification procedure; (2) imposing consecutive three year mandatory minimum sentences based upon a misconception that section 775.087(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1981), requires consecutive mandatory minimum sentences; and (3) imposing various costs against a previously adjudged insolvent defendant.
We affirm as to appellant’s first point. Although references to “mug shots” of a defendant could constitute error, such error does not lead to automatic reversal and may be harmless if there was other competent evidence, as there was here, identifying defendant. State v. Rucker, 330 So. 2d 470 (Fla.1976); Loftin v. State, 273 So. 2d 70 (Fla.1973). Also, answers of jurors to questioning by the trial court indicated that the jury did not give prejudicial consideration to either the photographs or the term “mug shots.” In addition, in contrast with Rucker and Loftin, the term “mug shots” was not used by the prosecutor but was contained in an unsolicited remark by a witness for the state.
As to appellant’s second point, consecutive three year minimum mandatory sentences may be imposed pursuant to section 775.087(2)(a) under the circumstances of this case. However, whether such minimum mandatory sentences shall run consecutively or concurrently is within the discretion of the sentencing judge. Brown v. State, 353 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). The record supports appellant’s position that the sentencing judge was of the opinion that the statute required him to impose consecutive three year mandatory minimum sentences. Therefore, we reverse and remand for resentencing at which the trial judge will exercise his foregoing discretion.
As to appellant’s third point, we strike the costs imposed. Appellant was adjudged insolvent, and the public defender was appointed to represent him. See Brown v. State, 427 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (question certified).
Accordingly, we AFFIRM appellant’s convictions, STRIKE the costs imposed, and REMAND to the trial court for resentencing.
OTT, C.J., and BOARDMAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McCALL v. State, 463 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…ndered harmless where state’s case not overwhelming, given testimony of alibi witnesses). A witness’s comment “may be erroneously admitted yet not be so prejudicial as to require reversal.” Ferguson, 417 So. 2d at 642. See Loftin; Encinosa v. State, 431 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Cf Russell v. State, 445 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (although reference to mug shots not reversible error in all cases, reversible error where identity not issue at trial). The victim of the robbery identified appellant as t…
-
Russell v. State, 445 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…ithin the meaning of section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1981). Viewing the entire record and circumstances we hold that it was error to deny Russell’s motion for a mistrial. See Loftin v. State, 273 So. 2d 70 (Fla.1973); see also Encinosa v. State, 431 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (the denial of defendant’s motion for mistrial was proper where identity was an issue and there was other competent evidence identifying the defendant besides references to mug shots); Evans v. State, 422 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 19…
Authorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 427 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Loftin v. State, 273 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 1973)
- State v. Rucker, 330 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 1976)
- Rutkin v. Burton Rutkin, 353 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Jenkins v. Allstate Ins. Co. & Hartford Ins. Co., 353 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)