JOHN C. SNODDERLY, 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.
Snodderly appealed his conviction for sexual battery on a child under age eleven. The appellate court affirmed the conviction but remanded for resentencing correction, finding the trial court failed to impose the required 25-year minimum mandatory sentence for the capital felony charge.
The trial court did not err in refusing to allow testimony regarding prior inconsistent statements because the victim was never asked whether she made such statements. The expert testimony, though excludable on timely objection, did not constitute fundamental error warranting reversal since no objection was made at trial. Sufficient evidence supported the conviction through the victim's testimony of penetration. The sentence must be corrected on remand to reflect that the crime is a capital felony requiring a 25-year minimum mandatory sentence.
[1] A trial court does not err in refusing to allow testimony regarding a witness's prior inconsistent statements if the witness was never asked if they made such statements.
[2] Testimony by a child sexual abuse expert concluding that the victim was sexually abused by the defendant does not constitute fundamental error if no objection was made at…
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“The trial court did not err in refusing to allow the testimony of defense witnesses as to prior inconsistent statements allegedly made by the victim as the victim had never been asked if she had made such statements.”
Establishes that impeachment by prior inconsistent statements under Florida law requires that the witness be confronted with the statements first.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSnodderly was convicted of sexual battery on a child under the age of eleven in violation of Florida Statute section 794.011(2). A child victim testif…
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 Life Felony cases and more on FLexlaw
BARFIELD, Judge.
Appellant appeals his conviction for sexual battery on a child under the age of eleven, in violation of section 794.011(2), Florida Statutes. We find no reversible errors among the issues raised on appeal.
The trial court did not err in refusing to allow the testimony of defense witnesses as to prior inconsistent statements allegedly made by the victim as the victim had never been asked if she had made such statements. Section 90.614(2), Florida Statutes. There was sufficient evidence in the victim’s testimony to establish penetration. Although excludable upon a timely objection, the testimony of the child sexual abuse expert that it was her conclusion the victim had been sexually abused by appellant did not constitute fundamental error such that it may be raised for the first time on appeal. Inexplicably no objection was made at trial. The record reflects the trial court adequately considered the factors the trial court is to consider in finding sufficient safeguards of reliability in out-of-court statements of child sexual abuse victims, under section 90.803(23). Distefano v. State, 526 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).
We do note a matter regarding the sentencing which was not raised on appeal. The conviction was under section 794.-011(2), which is a capital felony. The judgment incorrectly reflects that the crime was an “LF,” a life felony. The sentence imposed was for a term of natural life but does not include a minimum mandatory 25 years as required for a capital felony. Section 775.082(1). Due to the absence of a guidelines scoresheet in the record, it appears the sentencing was treated as a capital felony, as a life felony would require a scoresheet under section 921.001(4)(a). Sentencing errors that produce an illegal sentence and are apparent from the record can be raised on appeal without a contemporaneous objection. Bellinger v. State, 514 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). We sua sponte raise this issue as it is apparent from the record. On remand, the trial court is to amend the judgment to show that the crime was a capital felony, and not a life felony, and to correct the sentence to reflect that a 25 year minimum mandatory sentence is to be served.
The conviction is AFFIRMED and the case REMANDED to correct the sentence consistent with this opinion.
THOMPSON and NIMMONS, JJ., concur,
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wilson v. State, 622 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…520 So. 2d 583 (Fla.1988). On Issue IV, concerning the sufficiency of the evidence, we find the evidence supporting Appellant’s convictions is competent and substantial. Davis v. State, 569 So. 2d 1317, 1318 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Snodderly v. State, 528 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). We believe it will prove useful to explain the basis of our affirmance of Issue III, the trial court’s failure to give an attempt instruction for any of the offenses charged. Counts I, III, V and VII of the information charged…
-
Dukes v. State, 591 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…3219, 106 L.Ed.2d 569 (1989); Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla.1978); Williams v. State, 414 So. 2d 509 (Fla.1982); Saavedra v. State, 576 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Pringle v. State, 553 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Snodderly v. State, 528 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Marshall v. State, 439 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Rivers v. State, 425 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), review denied, 436 So. 2d 100 (Fla.1983).…
Authorities Cited
- Darrin Bellinger v. State, 514 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Distefano v. State, 526 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)