RONALD BEATTY, 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.
Ronald Beatty appealed his conviction and sentences for indecent assault, raising claims about lesser included offenses, witness qualification, and counsel substitution. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction and sentences while remanding to correct an administrative error in the probation order.
The court affirmed on all issues. The court held that Beatty waived any error regarding the lesser included offense, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the nurse practitioner's testimony as she was properly qualified under Florida Statutes, and that the trial court properly refused to allow withdrawal of counsel absent adequate grounds.
[1] A defendant waives any error regarding adjudication of guilt for an offense not a lesser included offense of the charge in the information by failing to raise the issue.
[2] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony when the witness is qualified under Section 90.702, Florida Statutes.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“General loss of confidence or trust standing alone will not support withdrawal of counsel.”
Establishes the legal standard for refusing a defendant's motion to withdraw counsel, requiring more than mere loss of confidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBeatty was charged with indecent assault. A nurse practitioner examined a child victim and testified at trial about her examination findings. After th…
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 Indecent Assault cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges his conviction and sentences for indecent assault, claiming that the court made several critical errors.
We affirm on all issues. As to the claim that the court adjudicated appellant guilty of an offense which was not a lesser included offense of the charge in the information, we hold that appellant waived any error. See Armstrong v. State, 579 So. 2d 734 (Fla.1991); Ray v. State, 403 So. 2d 956 (Fla.1981). As to the admissibility of the testimony of the nurse practitioner regarding her examination of the child victim, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony as the witness was qualified based on the criteria of Section 90.702, Florida Statutes (1989).
We reject the contention that witness is disqualified by the failure to present a “protocol which identifies] the medical acts to be performed and the conditions for their performance.” Section 464.003(3)(c), Fla.Stat. (1989) (governing the qualifications of nurse practitioners).
Appellant also claims that the trial court erred when it refused to replace appellant’s privately retained counsel with appointed counsel at the sentencing hearing. After the guilty verdict, appellant desired to dismiss his attorney, citing his attorney’s failure to adequately represent him. In a later hearing the court refused to grant the motion to withdraw, citing the attorney’s excellent trial performance, particularly in securing appellant’s conviction on the lesser included offense instead of the main charge which carried with it a 25 year mandatory minimum sentence. Since the trial judge had observed the entire trial and the representation by appellant’s counsel, we cannot find that he did not make adequate inquiry. See Capehart v. State, 583 So. 2d 1009, 1014 (Fla.1991). “General loss of confidence or trust standing alone will not support withdrawal of counsel.” Johnston v. State, 497 So. 2d 863, 868 (Fla.1986).
We find no abuse of discretion in refusing to allow the defendant’s counsel to withdraw under these circumstances. To allow appellant to discharge his counsel at this late date in the proceedings without adequate ground would thwart the orderly administration of justice. See Boudreau v. Carlisle, 549 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 4th DCA1989).
We affirm the remaining points on appeal. We remand, however, to correct the order of probation which erroneously reflects that appellant entered a guilty plea to the offenses when in fact he was tried and convicted by a jury. See Jackson v. State, 586 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 4th DCA1991).
DOWNEY, WARNER and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barrington Wilson v. State, 753 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…e disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion. Sanborn v. State, 474 So. 2d 309, 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (citations omitted). See also Thomas v. State, 725 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), review granted, 744 So. 2d 459 (Fla.1999); Beatty v. State, 606 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). Counsel’s motion to withdraw in this case was made in the middle of a jury trial in a two-year-old case. Granting the motion would have required the declaration of a mistrial and the rescheduling of trial a significant amount of…
-
McNALLY v. State, 685 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…oncedes, and we agree, that this case must be remanded because the orders of community control and probation incorrectly reflect that appellant entered a plea to the offense, when in fact appellant was tried and convicted by a jury. Beatty v. State, 606 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). Second, the order of probation incorrectly reflects that as special conditions of probation appellant was to serve 90 days in the county jail and to participate in an outpatient psychological program. These special conditions…
Authorities Cited
- RAY v. State, 403 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1981)
- Johnston v. State, 497 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1986)
- Armstrong v. State, 579 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 1991)
- Capehart v. State, 583 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 1991)
- Boudreau v. The Honorable James T. Carlisle, 549 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- MOM Chem. Co. & Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Shinhoster, 586 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)