BERNARD GRAVES, 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.
Bernard Graves, a prison inmate, appealed his conviction for battery on a law enforcement officer. The Florida Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction but vacated the sentence due to insufficient reasoning for the habitual offender enhancement, requiring resentencing.
The conviction is affirmed because Graves failed to present the self-defense argument to the trial court and therefore cannot raise it for the first time on appeal. The sentence is vacated and remanded because the trial court's stated reason for the habitual offender enhancement merely reiterated the statutory language without stating the underlying facts and circumstances supporting the enhanced sentence.
[1] An appellate court will not consider any ground for objection not presented to the trial court; review is limited to the specific grounds raised below.
[2] A trial court's written explanation for sentencing a defendant as a habitual offender is insufficient if it merely reiterates the words of the statute without stating the…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“An appellate court will not consider any ground for objection not presented to the trial court; review is limited to the specific grounds raised below.”
Establishes the principle that Graves cannot raise a self-defense argument on appeal when only impeachment was argued at trial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGraves, a prisoner at Baker Correctional Institution, was approached by Correctional Officer Cole who observed him putting something in his mouth. Whe…
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 Relevancy Objection cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Judge.
Appellant raises two issues in his appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence for battery on a law enforcement officer. We affirm the conviction, but va cate the sentence and remand for resentencing.
The appellant, a prisoner at Baker Correctional Institution, was approached by Correctional Officer Cole who saw appellant put something in his mouth. The officer grabbed appellant by the throat, but appellant shoved the officer aside and fled towards another section of the prison. Officer Cole managed to grab appellant, and the two fell to the floor in a scuffle. Appellant wrestled free, but was apprehended shortly thereafter by Cole and another officer. Cole attempted to handcuff appellant who wanted to first remove his wrist watch. The officers would not permit the appellant to remove the watch and another scuffle ensued.
Appellant was charged with battery upon a law enforcement officer. At trial, Officer Cole testified as a state witness. During cross-examination, the appellant asked Cole if he knew that unnecessary and unlawful use of force against an inmate could cause an officer to be terminated or subjected to criminal charges. The officer answered affirmatively before the state objected on the ground that the question was irrelevant. The trial court sustained the objection, and Cole’s response was stricken from the record. Without elaborating further, the appellant argued to the trial court that the question was relevant for impeachment purposes, but the trial court refused to change its ruling.
The jury found appellant guilty as charged; the trial court adjudicated him guilty, and the appellant was sentenced as a habitual offender to ten years. The trial court, in its written explanation, noted that appellant had previously committed an armed robbery and found that sentencing under the habitual offender statute, section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1987), was “necessary for the protection of the public ...”
In the first issue raised on appeal, appellant argues the trial court erred in granting the state’s relevancy objection to the appellant’s cross-examination of Officer Cole. On appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court prevented appellant from proving that his conduct was in self-defense against excessive force. As noted above, this was not the argument made to the trial court. “An appellate court will not consider any ground for objection not presented to the trial court; review is limited to the specific grounds raised below.” Mt. Sinai Hospital of Greater Miami v. Steiner, 426 So. 2d 1154, 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). See also Johnson v. Canteen Corp., 528 So. 2d 1364 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), and Palm Beach Aviation v. Kibildis, 423 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).
Appellant argues further that the trial court erred in sentencing him as a habitual offender. The state concedes that the trial court’s reason is insufficient. See Avery v. State, 505 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (merely reiterating the words of the statute insufficient to justify imposing an enhanced sentence under section 775.-084(4)(a), Florida Statutes). Accordingly, the sentence must be vacated and the cause remanded for resentencing. If the trial court should wish to again classify the appellant as a habitual offendfer, it must state the underlying facts and circumstances relied upon in making such a finding.
In sum, the appellant’s conviction is AFFIRMED, but the sentence VACATED and the cause REMANDED.
MINER, J., and PEARSON, TILLMAN (Retired), Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lamore v. State, 983 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…not pursue the original objection, and the defense made no further objections during the prosecu [*670] tion’s entire questioning of Biel. Accordingly, none of the issues raised under this point were preserved for appeal. See, e.g., Graves v. State, 548 So. 2d 801, 802 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Finally, Lamore argues that the State made an unfairly prejudicial and legally erroneous argument to the jury in closing that was irreparably harmful to him. In making this argument, Lamore concedes that no objection was r…
-
Stewart v. State, 608 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…habitual offender box had not been checked on his sentence. The attorney explained that an appeal of this error would simply result in a remand for a new sentencing hearing at which the defendant could be properly ha-bitualized. See Graves v. State, 548 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Johnson v. State, 576 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Apparently, the defendant’s counsel convinced him to dismiss the appeal so that he could receive the gain time associated with a nonhabitual sentence. See § 775.084(4)(e), Fla…
-
Salgat v. State, 630 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…se was distinguishable from Johnson because there was no dispute that Salgat shot Bolyard, and .therefore the instruction was unnecessary. We find that Salgat’s argument on appeal was not properly preserved for appellate review. See Graves v. State, 548 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Therefore, we decline to address its merits and affirm the giving of the instruction based on Johnson, supra. We do find that Salgat’s appellate counsel raises an important question about whether Johnson may be reconciled under…
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
- MT. Sinai Hosp. OF Greater Miami v. Steiner, 426 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Johnson v. Canteen Corp., 528 So. 2d 1364 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Jeffrie K. Avery v. State, 505 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Palm Beach Aviation, Inc. v. Kibildis, 423 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)