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.
Ivory Sheffield appeals a trial court's denial of his motion for post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel, challenging prosecutorial cross-examination about his prior felony convictions. The court affirms, finding that the prosecutor properly impeached Sheffield's evasive testimony about prior convictions without revealing improper factual details about those crimes.
The prosecution properly impeached Sheffield's evasive testimony by identifying his three prior felony convictions by date and name, and no ineffective assistance of counsel occurred because the prosecutor did not reveal any factual matters about the crimes and the trial court limited the scope of questioning.
[1] A defendant's failure to make a specific and timely objection at trial waives the right to raise the issue on direct appeal.
[2] A defendant's prior felony convictions may be used to impeach their credibility when the defendant does not answer questions about prior convictions in a straightforward…
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 prosecutor improperly revealed the nature of the prior offenses”
Statement from the court's prior direct appeal opinion that prompted Sheffield's current collateral attack, which the court now clarifies was an inaccurate characterization.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSheffield was convicted and sentenced as a habitual offender for robbery with a firearm. During trial, when asked about his prior felony convictions, …
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 Impeachment By Prior Conviction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Ivory Sheffield, previously convicted and sentenced as a habitual offender for the crime of robbery with a firearm, filed a motion for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We affirm the trial court’s ruling on the motion and write only to address one matter raised by Sheffield.
In a direct appeal of his conviction, Sheffield argued that the prosecutor was improperly allowed to cross-examine as to the specific details of Sheffield’s prior felony offenses. This court rejected that argument, finding that “appellant failed to preserve the error through a specific and timely objection.” Sheffield v. State, 585 So. 2d 396, 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Sheffield’s contention, now raised in this collateral attack, was no doubt prompted by this court’s statement in the earlier opinion that “the prosecutor improperly revealed the nature of the prior offenses.” Our review of the transcript convinces us, as it convinced the trial court, that such did not in fact happen.
During his trial, Sheffield acknowledged he had previously been convicted of a felony. When asked how many felony convictions he had, he stated, “Two or three, maybe. You know I really am not sure.” When given another opportunity by the prosecutor to give a definitive answer to the question, Sheffield stated, “It’s been a long time.” The prosecutor then, after an unreported bench conference, identified by date and name of crime three prior felonies of which Sheffield had been convicted in Alachua County. No facts pertaining to any of these charges were elicited by the prosecutor, and the trial court prohibited the prosecutor from going any further than asking Sheffield whether he remembered the convictions.
Since Sheffield did not answer the question concerning prior convictions in a straightforward manner, the prosecution properly sought to impeach him with his three prior felony convictions. Sheffield’s lawyer did not, by failure to object, allow the jury to hear any inadmissible matters. Sheffield does not allege that the prosecution did not have in hand certified copies of the three prior convictions. We further note that nothing in the brief exchange between the prosecutor and Sheffield revealed any factual matters concerning the crimes of which he had been convicted. We find no factual alie- gations sufficient to require an evidentiary hearing.
AFFIRMED.
ZEHMER, C.J., and KAHN and BENTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Augustine Perez v. State, 648 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 1995)…he trial court erred. Because Huffman did not answer the question concerning the number of prior convictions in a straightforward manner, the defense properly sought to impeach him with copies of his prior felony convictions. See Sheffield v. State, 634 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). However, because Huffman admitted to a large number of convictions and the State freely admitted that Huffman was a thief and a criminal, we conclude that any resulting error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See, e.g., Chr…
Authorities Cited
- Ivory Sheffield v. State, 585 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)