RONALD WINSTON NORRIS, 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.
Norris appealed his convictions for capital sexual battery and lewd and lascivious assault on a child. The court affirmed the sexual battery convictions and life sentences but vacated and remanded the lewd and lascivious assault sentence due to improper sentencing guidelines scoring and an unconstitutional fine.
The court held that while expert testimony vouching for witness credibility constitutes error, no objection was made so the error was not preserved for review. The court held that the sentencing guidelines scoresheet was improperly prepared because capital felonies cannot be scored as life felonies in the additional offenses section, and this error requires resentencing. The court held that the $200 fine violated the ex post facto clause because the state failed to prove the offenses occurred after the statute's effective date.
[1] Sentencing guidelines do not apply to capital felonies.
[2] A trial court must have the benefit of a properly prepared scoresheet before it can make a fully informed decision on whether to depart from the recommended sentence.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“While expert testimony may not be offered to directly vouch for the credibility of a witness, an objection is necessary to preserve the error for review.”
Establishes the rule that expert vouching for credibility requires timely objection to be reviewable on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNorris was convicted of two counts of capital sexual battery and one count of lewd and lascivious assault upon a child. The trial court imposed life s…
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 Ex Post Facto Provisions cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, Judge.
Norris appeals his convictions and sentences for two counts of capital sexual battery1 and one count of lewd and lascivious assault upon a child.2 The trial court imposed life sentences on Norris for the sexual batteries as required by section 775.082 and sentenced him to a six-year term for lewd and lascivious assault. We affirm the convictions and sentences for the sexual batteries, but we vacate the sentence for lewd and lascivious assault and remand for resentencing.
Appellant contends an expert witness for the state improperly vouched for the credibility of the victim by testifying she had validated the child’s complaint that she was sexually abused. While expert testimony may not be offered to directly vouch for the credibility of a witness, an objection is necessary to preserve the error for review. See Kruse v. State, 483 So. 2d 1383, 1388 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Phillips v. State, 476 So. 2d 194 (Fla.1985). None was made here.
However, we do find error in the preparation of the sentencing guidelines scoresheet for the lewd and lascivious assault offense. A trial court must have the benefit of a properly prepared scoresheet before it can make a fully informed decision on whether to depart from the recommended sentence. Although the court properly scored the second degree felony of lewd and lascivious assault as the primary offense, it improperly scored the two sexual batteries, which are capital felonies, as life felonies under the “additional offenses” section of the scoresheet.3 This increased Norris’ score by fifty-three points, thereby boosting the presumptive sentence range up two brackets.
The guidelines do not provide a means to score capital felonies as additional offenses at conviction, although there is a score for life felonies. Therefore, it was erroneous to score them. Davis v. State, 493 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). However, in resentencing, the trial court may use the capital felonies as a reason for departing from the guidelines. Cf. Weems v. State, 469 So. 2d 128 (Fla.1985).
In addition, the trial court’s imposition of a $200.00 fine pursuant to section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985) violates the ex post facto provisions of the Florida and United States Constitutions,4 since the state was unable to prove that the appellant committed the offenses after the effective date of the statute. Yost v. State, 489 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Therefore, we vacate the fine.
CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED IN PART; SENTENCE FOR LEWD AND LASCIVIOUS ASSAULT VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESEN-TENCING.
UPCHURCH, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur. . § 794.011(2), Fla.Stat. (1985).
. § 800.04(1), Fla.Stat. (1985).
. Laster v. State, 486 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).
. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 10, cl. 1; Art. I, § 10, Fla. Const.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fuller v. State, 540 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…AUKSCH, J., concur. . § 794.011(2), Fla.Stat. (1987). . § 800.04(1), Fla.Stat. (1987). . This testimony was not objected to at trial. Although the absence of an objection ordinarily precludes appellate review of an alleged error, Norris v. State, 503 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) we consider the cumulative effect of this error and others which will be discussed, infra, to be so fundamental as to require reversal. See Nazareth v. Sapp, 459 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Dukes v. State, 356 So. 2d 873 (Fl…
-
Norris v. State, 525 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…DAUKSCH, Judge. This is an appeal from an order denying post-conviction relief. This appellant's appeal from his conviction is found at Norris v. State, 503 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). As we said in that opinion it is error to admit testimony from a witness who is offered to vouch for the credibility of another. That has long been the law of Florida and was most recently announced in Kruse v. State, 483 So. 2d…
-
Major Thornton v. State, 683 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…oresheet includes ninety-eight points for a prior conviction for first degree homicide. This conviction should not have been scored because a capital offense is not scoreable.1 See Stuart v. State, 536 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Norris v. State, 503 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Davis v. State, 493 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). When the points for victim injury and for the capital felony are subtracted from Thornton’s scoresheet, his score places his presumptive sentence three cell levels lower. Accor…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Weems v. State, 469 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 1985)
- Yost v. State, 489 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Kruse v. State, 483 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Phillips v. State, 476 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 1985)
- Davis v. State, 493 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Laster v. State, 486 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)