IVORY SHEFFIELD, 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 held that a prosecutor's improper cross-examination on prior felony details does not warrant reversal if not properly preserved by objection, and that the habitual offender statute permits enhancement for first-degree felonies punishable by life.
[1] A prosecutor may not delve into the specifics of a testifying defendant's prior felony offenses when attacking credibility.
[2] Failure to make a specific and timely objection to improper cross-examination regarding prior offenses preserves the error for appeal.
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 intelligenceAppellant was convicted of robbery with a firearm and sentenced as a habitual offender. He argued improper cross-examination regarding prior felonies …
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 Improper Cross-Examination cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Ivory Sheffield, challenges his conviction and habitual offender sentence after a jury found.him guilty of robbery with a firearm. As grounds for reversing his conviction, appellant complains that he was improperly cross-examined as to the specific details of his prior felony offenses. Concerning his enhanced sentence as an habitual felony offender, appellant argues that the statute does not permit enhancement where the sentenced offense is a first-degree felony punishable by a term of years not exceeding life imprisonment. We affirm.
Although prior felonies or crimes involving dishonesty may be used to attack the credibility of a testifying criminal defendant, the prosecutor is not permitted to delve into the specifics of the prior convictions. Jackson v. State, 498 So. 2d 906, 909 (Fla.1986); Fulton v. State, 335 So. 2d 280, 284 (Fla.1976). In the instant case, the prosecutor improperly revealed the nature of the prior offenses, but appellant failed to preserve the error through a specific and timely objection. Because such an objection is necessary to preserve the error asserted, we must affirm appellant’s conviction. Thomas v. State, 424 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).
Neither can we accept appellant’s argument that section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1989), does not permit enhancement of his sentence for a first-degree felony punishable by life. In Burdick v. State, 584 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), we rejected this argument and held that the habitual offender statute authorizes enhancement of first-degree felonies punishable by life. As we did in Burdick, we certify the following question as one of great public importance:1
IS A FIRST-DEGREE FELONY PUNISHABLE BY A TERM OF YEARS NOT EXCEEDING LIFE IMPRISONMENT SUBJECT TO AN ENHANCED SENTENCE PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE HABITUAL FELONY OFFENDER STATUTE?
AFFIRMED.
JOANOS, C.J., and MINER, J., concur. ERVIN, J., concurs in result.
. Because Sheffield was not given a life sentence, we have modified the question to omit reference to life imprisonment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hayes v. State, 598 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…lonies punishable by imprisonment of a term of years not exceeding life. § 775.084, Fla.Stat. Burdick v. State, 594 So. 2d 267 (Fla.1992); Harris v. State, 586 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), approved, 594 So. 2d 272 (Fla.1992); Sheffield v. State, 585 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), approved, 595 So. 2d 37 (Fla.1992); Lock v. State, 582 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), approved, 595 So. 2d 50 (Fla.1992); Newton; Tucker v. State, 576 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), approved, 595 So. 2d 956 (Fla.1992); Westbroo…
-
Ivory Sheffield v. State, 595 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1992)…PER CURIAM. We approve Sheffield v. State, 585 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), on the authority of Burdick v. State, 594 So. 2d 267 (Fla.1992). It is so ordered. SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, barkett, grimes, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.…
-
McFADDEN v. State, 732 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…6, you pled guilty to aggravated battery of Sharon Hudgins? Even if the previous plea was properly referred to, it is plain, and independent, error to introduce these (particularly damaging) “specifics of the prior convictions.” Sheffield v. State, 585 So. 2d 396, 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), approved, 595 So. 2d 37 (Fla.1992); see also Porter v. State, 593 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). 3. Finally, both of these mistakes were further exacerbated when McFadden was not permitted to explain to the jury that he h…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fulton v. State, 335 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 1976)
- Jackson v. State, 498 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 1986)
- Pearson & Maluso, M.D., P.A. v. Bott, 584 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Winzer Leon Thomas v. State, 424 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)