EDUARDO TORANZO, 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.
Appellant Eduardo Toranzo appeals his convictions and sentences for armed burglary and armed sexual battery with a deadly weapon. The court affirmed the admission of DNA evidence and prosecutor's comments, but reversed and remanded the habitual offender enhancement for the life felony conviction, holding that life felonies are not subject to habitual offender enhancement under Florida law.
The court affirmed that DNA evidence was properly admitted and prosecutor's comments were not improper. The court affirmed the habitual offender enhancement for armed burglary (first degree felony punishable by life) but reversed the habitual offender enhancement for armed sexual battery with a deadly weapon (life felony), holding that life felonies are not subject to habitual offender enhancement under section 775.084.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion by admitting expert testimony regarding statistical data, such as DNA matching probabilities.
[2] Comments made by a prosecutor during closing argument are not improper if they do not violate established legal standards.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this evidence.”
Establishes that DNA evidence with statistical probability data was properly admitted under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceToranzo was convicted of armed burglary (first degree felony punishable by life) and armed sexual battery with a deadly weapon (a life felony). DNA te…
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 Expert Testimony Admissibility cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Eduardo Toranzo, appeals his convictions and sentences for armed burglary (a first degree felony punishable by life) and armed sexual battery with a deadly weapon (a life felony). He contends the judge erred in admitting expert testimony regarding statistical data, erred by not sustaining objections to certain comments by the prosecutor during closing argument, and erred in sentencing him as an habitual offender, arguing that first degree felonies punishable by life and life felonies are not subject to enhancement pursuant to section 775.084, Florida Statutes (Supp.1988). We affirm in part and reverse in part.
An expert witness for the state testified that DNA testing had been conducted and that the DNA profile on evidence from the scene matched that of Toranzo and that the probability of obtaining the same match from another individual from the Hispanic population was approximately one in twenty-four million.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this evidence. Robinson v. State, 610 So. 2d 1288 (Fla.1992); Martinez v. State, 549 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Andrews v. State, 533 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 5th DCA1988), review denied, 542 So. 2d 1332 (Fla.1989). We also hold that the trial court correctly concluded that the portions of the prosecutor’s closing argument which were objected to were not improper. Regarding the habitual offender sentences, the supreme court has held that first degree felonies punishable by life are subject to enhancement under the habitual felony offender statute. Burdick v. State, 594 So. 2d 267 (Fla.1992).
The trial court correctly sentenced appellant under the habitual offender statute for armed burglary. This court has previously held that section 775.084, Florida Statutes, makes no provision for habitual offender enhancement of a life felony. Glover v. State, 596 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Gholston v. State, 589 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), approved 611 So. 2d 1224 (Fla.1992); Johnson v. State, 568 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). We therefore vacate Toranzo’s habitual offender sentence for armed sexual battery with a deadly weapon and remand this portion of the case to the trial court for resentencing. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and remanded for partial resentencing.
ERVIN, ZEHMER, and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vargas v. State, 640 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…entification appears based on proven scientific principles." The particular problem with DNA print identification at issue in the present case was not at issue in Andrews. . The analysis of admissibility of DNA profile evidence in Toranzo v. State, 608 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), was based entirely on Robinson, Martinez, and Andrews. The issue raised in the instant case was not raised there. . Appellee submitted a notice of supplemental authority, citing Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmeceuticals, - U.S. -,…
Authorities Cited
- Burdick v. State, 594 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1992)
- Andrews v. State, 533 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)
- Easter v. State, 568 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Robinson v. State, 610 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 1992)
- Gholston v. State, 589 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Parker v. State, 611 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 1992)
- Gholston v. State, 611 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 1992)
- Glover v. State, 596 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Martinez v. State, 549 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)