STEPHEN DEANGELIS, 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 the trial court erred in refusing to allow cross-examination of a key witness regarding pending criminal charges that may have influenced their testimony, and also erred in sentencing without written reasons for departure.
Appellant claimed the trial court improperly limited his counsel's cross-examination of the state's key witness concerning pending criminal charges. T…
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 Written Reasons For Sentencing Departure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant claims that the trial court erred in refusing to allow his counsel, on cross-examination of the state’s key witness, to delve fully into pending criminal charges and their treatment by the state which may have influenced the witness’ testimony favorable to the state. We agree and reverse. See Auchmuty v. State, 594 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Powe v. State, 413 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Lee v. State, 318 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).
We affirm the court’s refusal to compel the state to agree to the admission of polygraph evidence. See State v. Horvatch, 413 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).
Finally, the state concedes that the court erred in sentencing appellant outside the recommended guideline range with a one cell upward departure without written reasons, since the offense with which appellant was charged was committed prior to the effective date of Chapter 88-131, Laws of Florida, which permitted the one cell departure. See Smith v. State, 582 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Should appellant be convicted on retrial, he must be sentenced within the guidelines, or in the alternative, the court must provide written reasons for departure. Id.; see also Merritt v. State, 567 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
Reversed and remanded.
DOWNEY, WARNER and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Earnest Bell v. State, 614 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…to criminal prosecution. Breedlove v. State, 580 So. 2d at 608. These two questions were extremely relevant to Charles’ credibility and were the proper subject of cross-examination. See Breedlove v. State, 580 So. 2d at 607-08; DeAngelis v. State, 605 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Williams v. State, 600 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Moreno v. State, 418 So. 2d 1223, 1226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); see also Watts v. State, 450 So. 2d 265, 267-68 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Hannah v. State, 432 So. 2d 631, 631-32 (Fla. 3…
-
Douglas v. State, 627 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…d 579 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), in which this court stated that a criminal defendant has an absolute right to bring out circumstances which might indicate possible motive or self-interest with respect to the testimony. Id. at 580. See DeAngelis v. State, 605 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (conviction reversed where defense counsel was not allowed to delve fully into pending criminal charges and their treatment by the state). In Bell v. State, 614 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), the defense asked a prosecution witn…
-
Mac Ray Wright v. State, 633 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…ich is the maximum under the permitted range, is error because sentencing within the permitted range without written reason rather than the recommended range was not a part of the statute at the time he committed his offense. See DeAngelis v. State, 605 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Smith v. State, 582 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); see generally Miller v. Florida, 482 U.S. 423, 107 S.Ct. 2446, 96 L.Ed.2d 351 (1987). Accordingly, this case is remanded for the trial court to resentence appellant within the r…
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
- Auchmuty v. State, 594 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- LEE v. State, 318 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Powe v. State, 413 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- State v. Horvatch, 413 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Merritt v. State, 567 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Cliff Anthony Smith v. State, 582 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)