RONALD N. BAKER, 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.
Ronald Baker appealed his convictions for burglary, robbery, and grand theft, challenging voir dire limitations and cross-examination restrictions. The court affirmed the convictions but remanded for resentencing because the trial judge improperly relied on invalid sentencing departure reasons and imposed sentences exceeding statutory maximums.
The court affirmed the convictions, finding no abuse of discretion in voir dire limitations and that any cross-examination error was harmless. However, the court held that habitual offender status and failure of rehabilitation attempts are not valid sentencing departure reasons, and remanded for resentencing because the imposed sentences exceeded statutory maximums.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion by limiting voir dire questioning when general questions and the jury charge provide adequate protection, and the court contro…
[2] A defendant has the right to cross-examine a witness for bias, but any error in limiting such questioning may be harmless if the bias is otherwise demonstrated or if coun…
Previewing 2 of 6 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 a defendant unquestionably has the right to fully cross-examine for bias, Yolman v. State, 469 So.2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), we find that the counsel was offered an opportunity to rephrase, declined to do so and failed to proffer the answer to the original question.”
Establishes that while cross-examination on bias is a fundamental right, procedural failures by counsel and harmlessness of error can limit appellate relief.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBaker was convicted of burglary of a dwelling, robbery, and grand theft. The recommended guidelines sentence was 4.5 to 5.5 years imprisonment. The tr…
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 Cross-Examination For Bias cases and more on FLexlaw
THREADGILL, Judge.
Ronald Baker appeals his convictions and sentences on charges of burglary of a dwelling, robbery, and grand theft. The recommended guidelines sentence was four and one-half to five and one-half years imprisonment. The trial judge declared Baker to be a habitual felony offender and sentenced him to ten years imprisonment followed by fifteen years probation for the burglary and robbery, and ten years imprisonment followed by fifteen years probation for grand theft. The judge gave as additional reasons for departure, defendant’s escalating pattern of criminal conduct and his failure of previous attempts at rehabilitation. We affirm the convictions, but remand for resentencing.
Baker charges error in the court’s limitation of voir dire questioning by counsel. We find no abuse of discretion where, as here, the general voir dire questions and the jury charge afford adequate protection, United States v. Miller, 758 F. 2d 570 (11th Cir.1985) and note also that voir dire is subject to the court’s control of repetitious and argumentative questioning, Jones v. State, 378 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).
Baker also contends that the court erred by limiting cross-examination of a key witness designed to show bias. While a defendant unquestionably has the right to fully cross-examine for bias, Yolman v. State, 469 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), we find that the counsel was offered an opportunity to rephrase, declined to do so and failed to proffer the answer to the original question. The record also reflects that the alleged bias was demonstrated elsewhere during the trial, and thus any error in excluding the questioning concerning bias was harmless. Marr v. State, 494 So. 2d 1139 (Fla.1986).
As the first reason for departing from the recommended sentence, the court found Baker to be a habitual offender. This is no longer a permissible reason for departure under Whitehead v. State, 498 So. 2d 863 (Fla.1986). The second reason for departure was defendant’s escalating pattern of criminal conduct. This is a valid reason for departure. Keys v. State, 500 So. 2d 134 (Fla.1986). The remaining reason for departure, i.e., failure of previous attempts at rehabilitation, is not a valid reason for departure. Scott v. State, 508 So. 2d 335 (Fla.1987).
We find from the record that the trial judge would have departed from the recommended sentence solely on the basis of the one valid reason. Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla.1985). However, because the sentences exceeded the statutory máxi-mums, we remand for resentencing.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
FRANK, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morrison v. State, 818 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 2002)…n from herself and show bias toward the defendant. “If the relevancy of questions going to bias is not apparent from the question [*448] itself, counsel has a duty to advise the court of relevancy.” Ehrhardt, supra, § 608.5; see also Baker v. State, 517 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (holding defense counsel’s cross examination of key witness designed to show bias was not improperly limited where counsel failed to rephrase or proffer answer to question); Hernandez v. State, 360 So. 2d 39, 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…1 / 2
-
Watson v. State, 693 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…iscretion with regard to the voir dire examination of prospective jurors. Vining v. State, 637 So. 2d 921 (Fla.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1022, 115 S.Ct. 589, 130 L.Ed.2d 502 (1994); Miller v. State, 683 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Baker v. State, 517 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Williams v. State, 424 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Barker v. Randolph, 239 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 242 So. 2d 137 (Fla.1970). The trial court in this case accorded counsel reasonable notice that each side wo…
-
King v. State, 790 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…rospective jurors. Vining v. State, 637 So. 2d 921 (Fla.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1022, 115 S.Ct. 589, 130 L.Ed.2d 502 (1994). See Watson v. State, 693 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Miller v. State, 683 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Baker v. State, 517 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Barker v. Randolph, 239 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970). We review the trial court’s rulings regarding the scope of voir dire interrogation on specific subjects under an abuse of discretion standard. Davis v. State, 698 So. 2d 118…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Whitehead v. State, 498 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1986)
- City OF Atl. Beach v. Bull, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)
- Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)
- Keys v. State, 500 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 1986)
- Scott v. State, 508 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 1987)
- Marr v. State, 494 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 1986)
- Jones v. State, 378 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Yolman v. State, 469 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- United States v. Miller, 758 F.2d 570 (11th Cir. 1985)