ROBERT MOSS, 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.
The court affirmed the conviction but reversed the sentence, holding that the trial court was not required to instruct the jury that prior convictions were only for credibility, but that the state must corroborate prior convictions on the scoresheet.
Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for second-degree murder. The state admitted evidence of prior convictions to challenge the defendant's…
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 Corroboration Of Prior Convictions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals from his conviction and sentence for second-degree murder. We affirm his conviction. Contrary to his contention on appeal, we do not com elude that the trial court was required to instruct the jury that evidence of his prior convictions, which was properly admitted, see Parks v. Zitnik, 453 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), was admitted solely to challenge defendant’s credibility and was not to be considered as substantive evidence of the crime for which he was being tried. See Riechmann v. State, 581 So. 2d 133 (Fla.1991). In any event, the state’s closing argument emphasized the effect of that evidence upon defendant’s credibility.
We reverse his sentence. We construe defendant’s objection to the guidelines scoresheet and demand for corroboration of the previous convictions scored thereon as disputing the correctness of the scoresheet in that regard. Accordingly, the state was required to corroborate those prior convictions. See Baker v. State, 493 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
The conviction is affirmed. The sentence is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and LEHAN and PARKER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. State, 714 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…se. When a defendant disputes a prior offense the sentencing court must either require the State to produce corroborating evidence of the offense or not consider the offense. See Baldwin v. State, 700 So. 2d 95, 96 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Moss v. State, 581 So. 2d 182, 183 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Spann v. State, 550 So. 2d 164, 166 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Accordingly, at resentencing, we direct the trial court to not include the disputed misdemeanor offense in the new guidelines seoresheet, unless the State is able to pr…
-
Lightfoot v. State, 591 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…1973). We deem the failure to request a limiting instruction at the time the evidence was admitted constitutes a waiver of the right to challenge the point on appeal. See, generally, Riechmann v. State, 581 So. 2d 133, 140 (Fla.1991); Moss v. State, 581 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). There is no authority for requiring a trial court to give such an instruction at the close of trial. Accordingly, the conviction is affirmed. SHIVERS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur. . The impeachment cross-examination is set forth he…
-
Brown v. State, 695 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…he accuracy of the score-sheet, the state has the burden of producing competent evidence of the disputed convictions. Watson v. State, 591 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). See also Hamilton v. State, 658 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Moss v. State, 581 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). The state failed to meet this burden. Additionally, we note that the seoresheet for circuit court case number 94-13884 contained a mathematical error which incorrectly added twenty points to the original score-sheet total. Even…
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
- Dieter Riechmann v. State, 581 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1991)
- Baker v. State, 493 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Parks v. Zitnik, 453 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)