TORRENCE LAWTON, 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.
Torrence Lawton appeals his convictions for first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, and robbery following an adverse jury verdict. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed all convictions and sentences, finding no reversible error in the trial court's procedural rulings regarding a trial recess, evidentiary exclusions, and sentencing guidelines departure.
The trial court committed no reversible error. The recess was proper given its important purpose, limited duration, proper jury instruction, and lack of showing of prejudice. The exclusion of the defendant's proposed evidence was proper as patently inadmissible under Florida law. The sentencing guidelines departure was proper and the extent of departure was not subject to appellate review.
[1] A brief trial recess for the purpose of locating a vital subpoenaed witness is not reversible error when the recess covers a holiday period, the jury is properly cautione…
[2] Evidence of a defendant's lack of prior criminal record is inadmissible to prove good character.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 purpose of the recess was an important one, namely, for the state to locate a vital subpoenaed witness who had mysteriously disappeared during trial”
Establishes the trial court's justification for the recess and supports the finding that it served an important purpose
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLawton was convicted by jury of first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, and robbery. During trial, the state recessed proceedings for four…
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 Attempted First Degree Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1370] PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendant Tor-rence Lawton from judgments of conviction and sentences for first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder and robbery based on an adverse jury verdict. We find no merit in the defendant’s three points on appeal and affirm.
First, the trial court committed no reversible error in recessing the trial below for a brief period after the state had presented all but one of its witnesses. We reach this conclusion because (a) the purpose of the recess was an important one, namely, for the state to locate a vital subpoenaed witness who had mysteriously disappeared during trial after the state had allowed the witness to remain on call;1 (b) the recess ordered covered the Thanksgiving holidays and involved only four working court days (twelve calendar days); (c) the trial court properly cautioned the jury not to discuss the case with anyone or to hear or view any media reports concerning the case; and (d) no showing of prejudice to the defendant has otherwise been made. Compare McDermott v. State, 383 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
Second, the trial court properly granted the state’s motion in limine and precluded the defendant from (1) establishing that he had no prior criminal record as proof of his good character, and (2) impeaching certain of the state’s witnesses with juvenile delinquency adjudications. This is so because it is clear that the above evidence is patently inadmissible in Florida. McCartney v. State, 510 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Bishop v. State, 438 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); § 90.610(1)(b), Fla.Stat. (1987).
Finally, the trial court properly departed from the sentencing guidelines in imposing the sentences below based on an unscored first-degree murder conviction. See McPhaul v. State, 496 So. 2d 1009, 1011 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Smith v. State, 454 So. 2d 90, 91 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). The defendant’s further attack on the extent of the sentencing guidelines departure herein is not subject to appellate review. Booker v. State, 514 So. 2d 1079 (Fla.1987).
The judgments of conviction and sentences under review are, in all respects,
AFFIRMED.
. Although we recognize that the state may have been ill-advised in allowing this witness to remain on call in view of the close familial relationship between the witness and one of the codefendants in the case, and that the trial court was in no sense required to grant such a continuance, we cannot say that the continuance did not serve an important purpose, notwithstanding the state’s possible fault in allowing this vital witness to slip away.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Goodman v. State, 567 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…that if the convictions are sustained, it was error to convict and sentence for the possession of a firearm, which arose out of the single act of the alleged second degree murder. We affirm on the first point upon this record. See Lawton v. State, 538 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Bishop v. State, 438 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); § 39.12(7) Florida Statutes (1987). And as to the second point, the state concedes error on the following authority, Ambroa v. State, 547 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Smith v.…
-
Torrence Lawton v. State, 109 So. 3d 825 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…One. The two sentences in the nonhomi-cide case were to run concurrent with each other and concurrent with the sentences imposed in the homicide/nonhomicide case. The judgments and sentences were all affirmed on direct appeal. See Lawton v. State, 538 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Lawton thereafter filed several postconviction motions; each was denied and affirmed on appeal. The instant appeal arises out of a motion for postconviction relief filed by Lawton following the United States Supreme Court’s decis…1 / 2
-
Rivers v. State, 792 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…purposes is erroneous. Martin v. State, 710 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (error to permit defense witness to be impeached under § 90.610, Fla. Stat., with juvenile adjudication); Goodman v. State, 567 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Lawton v. State, 538 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). The applicable provision in the Florida Evidence Code states: 90.610 Conviction of certain crimes as impeachment.— [*566] (1) A party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Smith v. State, 454 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Dilar S. Booker v. State, 514 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 1987)
- Basil McDERMOTT v. The State of Fla. & the Honorable Frederick Barad, 383 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Gerena v. Carter, 496 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Bishop v. State, 438 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Branley McCARTNEY v. State, 510 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)