MANUEL LEE DUNN, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The court affirmed the conviction but modified the sentences from consecutive to concurrent minimum mandatory terms because the offenses did not arise from separate incidents at separate times and places.
The trial court properly denied the motion to suppress identification testimony because the identification procedure did not create a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification, but improperly imposed consecutive rather than concurrent minimum mandatory sentences.
[1] Consecutive minimum mandatory sentences are improper unless the offenses arose from separate incidents which occurred at separate times and places.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant Dunn was convicted and sentenced to two consecutive minimum mandatory terms of imprisonment based on identification testimony obtained throu…
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 Neil V. Biggers Reliability Factors cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The judgment of conviction from which the defendant appeals is affirmed upon a holding that the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress identification testi mony since the identification procedure did not give rise to a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification, see Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972); Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 97 S.Ct. 2243, 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977); Grant v. State, 390 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 913, 101 S.Ct. 1987, 68 L.Ed.2d 303 (1981), and, further, since an identification made shortly after a crime is committed is inherently more reliable than a later identification in court, State v. Freber, 366 So. 2d 426 (Fla.1978); State v. Guerra, 455 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (en banc), review denied, 461 So. 2d 114 (Fla.1985).
We agree with the defendant that the trial court improperly sentenced him to two consecutive minimum mandatory terms of imprisonment.1 Imposition of consecutive sentences is improper unless the offenses arose from separate incidents which occurred at separate times and places. See State v. Baker, 452 So. 2d 927 (Fla.1984); Palmer v. State, 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1983); Warren v. State, 450 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Accordingly, the sentences are modified to run concurrently rather than consecutively.
The judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed, as modified.
. The state concedes this point.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 545 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…procedure was unnecessarily suggestive, we conclude that Perez’s initial opportunity to observe Young provides indicia of reliability sufficient to support denial of the motion. See State v. Billue, 497 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Dunn v. State, 492 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). “The weaknesses in the eyewitness identifications ... were argued to the jury, and ... such weaknesses went to the weight not the admissibility of the ... identification.” Perez v. State, 539 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Accord…
-
Taj Marion Collier v. State, 695 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…v. State, 366 So. 2d 745 (Fla.1978); Mingo v. State, 680 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Laines v. State, 662 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) rev. denied, 670 So. 2d 940 (Fla.1996); Garcia v. State, 594 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Dunn v. State, 492 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); State v. Cromartie, 419 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Stevens v. State, 251 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971); Stone v. State, 208 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968).…
Authorities Cited
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (U.S. 1972)
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (U.S. 1977)
- Dean v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1983)
- Grant v. State, 390 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 1980)
- State v. Baker, 452 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 1984)
- Delgado v. Israel, 451 U.S. 913 (U.S. 1981)
- Girardi v. Virginia, 451 U.S. 913 (U.S. 1981)
- State v. Freber, 366 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1978)
- State v. Guerra, 455 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Warren v. State, 450 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)