BRENT MINNIS, 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.
Brent Minnis appeals his conviction and sentence for robbery on three grounds: admission of collateral crime evidence, prosecutorial comment on his statement to police, and the sufficiency of corroboration for prior convictions in sentencing. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding no error in any of the three issues raised.
The court held that: (1) the complained-of testimony was so fleeting and minor that it could not have contributed to the conviction; (2) the prosecutor's comment on the defendant's statement to police, noting the absence of an alibi claim, was permissible and did not violate the defendant's right to remain silent; and (3) a court computer printout is sufficient corroboration of prior convictions when the defendant does not dispute their truthfulness but merely challenges the method of corroboration.
[1] Admission of testimony that does not lend itself to a reasonable inference of a collateral crime, and is fleeting and minor, is permissible and unlikely to contribute to…
[2] A prosecutor's comment on a defendant's failure to assert an alibi in an oral statement to police is a permissible comment on the statement, not on the defendant's right…
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“the subject testimony was so fleeting and minor in nature that it could not possibly have contributed to the conviction based on this record”
Establishes the standard for harmless error when alleged collateral crime evidence is admitted—error is harmless if testimony is too minor to affect verdict
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMinnis was convicted by jury verdict of robbery. At sentencing, the state relied on a court computer printout to establish that Minnis had two prior f…
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 Comment On Defendant'S Silence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant Brent Minnis appeals a judgment of conviction and sentence for robbery entered below on an adverse jury verdict. He raises three points on appeal relating to (1) the admission in evidence of an alleged collateral crime, (2) a comment by the prosecuting attorney in closing argument to the jury, and (3) the sentence imposed in the case. We find no merit in any of these points and affirm.
First, the state did not introduce collateral crime evidence as the testimony complained of does not lend itself to a reasonable inference that the defendant was involved in a collateral crime or prior bad act. Moreover, the subject testimony was so fleeting and minor in nature that it could not possibly have contributed to the conviction based on this record. See Fields v. State, 257 So. 2d 241, 242 (Fla.1971); Dornan v. State, 306 So. 2d 167, 171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 422 U.S. 1011, 95 S.Ct. 2636, 45 L.Ed.2d 675 (1975); Hines v. State, 243 So. 2d 434, 435 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971).
Second, the prosecuting attorney did not, as urged, comment on the defendant’s refusal to testify in this case. He commented on the defendant’s oral statement to the arresting police officer, noting that the defendant did not assert an alibi in this statement. This is a perfectly permissible comment on the defendant’s statement to the police, and in no sense amounts to a comment on the defendant’s exercise of his right to remain silent. See Harris v. State, 438 So. 2d 787 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 963, 104 S.Ct. 2181, 80 L.Ed.2d 563 (1984); Kinnon v. State, 439 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), pet. for review denied, 451 So. 2d 849 (Fla.1984); Atkinson v. State, 378 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
Third, we see no sentencing error here because the state relied on an otherwise official court computer printout to es tablish that the defendant had been previously convicted of two prior felonies and four prior misdemeanors. There is no showing that this printout was inaccurate in any way; the defendant generally objected to the method of corroboration of the sentencing computation, not to its truthfulness, and now urges that certified copies of all such convictions are required when challenged, as here, by the defendant. We know of no authority to support such an assertion and none is cited by the defendant. All that is required is that a defendant’s prior convictions be corroborated by the state, and we think the court computer printout in this case was sufficient corroboration. See Brown v. State, 473 So. 2d 1260, 1266 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 106 S.Ct. 607, 88 L.Ed.2d 585 (1985); Eutsey v. State, 383 So. 2d 219 (Fla.1980); Thompson v. State, 478 So. 2d 462, 464 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); cf Stacey v. State, 483 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (Where defendant disputes the truthfulness of the statements concerning prior convictions and state offers no corroboration whatever, remand for corroboration is required.); Morris v. State, 483 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (same); Davis v. State, 463 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (same).
The final judgment of conviction and sentence under review are, in all respects,
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Holmes v. State, 565 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…t thereafter did he unequivocally invoke his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The officer’s testimony was a recounting of what transpired during the questioning rather than a comment on appellant’s right to remain silent. See Minnis v. State, 505 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Cf. Crawford v. State, 494 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). We distinguish Starr v. State, 518 So. 2d 1389 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), wherein Starr was never afforded the opportunity to invoke his right to remain silent as he was never…
-
McGEE v. State, 570 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…olice after the incident, she had not referred to a specific claim— that a shot had been fired before she stabbed the decedent — which was a feature of her testimony at the trial. Holmes v. State, 565 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Minnis v. State, 505 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). The second point arises from the fact that, when the jury returned for rein-structions on the law of second degree murder and manslaughter during its deliberations, the trial court gave only general definitions of the respective…
-
State v. Allister Jones, 867 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 2004)…silent); Dorman v. State, 638 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (prosecutor’s statement on the lack of testimony to support defendant’s claim of self-defense was not a comment on the defendant’s exercise of his right to remain silent); Minnis v. State, 505 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (prosecutor’s comment on .defendant’s oral statement to arresting officer was not a comment on the defendant’s exercise of his right to remain silent). , The majority suggests that the statement in Harris is, different than the c…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (17 total)
- Fredford James Eutsey v. State, 383 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 1980)
- Harris v. State, 438 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 1983)
- Brown v. State, 473 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 1985)
- Davis v. State, 463 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Global Terminal & Container Servs., Inc. v. Colgate Palmolive Co., 466 U.S. 963 (U.S. 1984)
- Velde v. Nat'l Black Police Assn., Inc., 466 U.S. 963 (U.S. 1984)
- Chavez v. New Mexico, 422 U.S. 1011 (U.S. 1975)
- Hayward v. Johnson, 422 U.S. 1011 (U.S. 1975)
- Thompson v. State, 478 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Dornau v. State, 306 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)