REGINALD YOUNG, 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.
Reginald Young appeals his conviction and sentences in two cases. The court affirmed his conviction and sentence in case 92-11723 for robbery, finding any trial court and prosecutorial error harmless in light of overwhelming evidence, but vacated his sentence in case 91-6924 because his youthful offender status prohibited sentences exceeding six years total.
Any error in the trial court's questioning and the prosecutor's leading questions was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the overwhelming evidence of guilt. The trial court erred in sentencing Young to three concurrent ten-year terms in case 91-6924 because his youthful offender status prohibited total prison sentences exceeding six years for those crimes.
[1] An appellate court may affirm a judgment and sentence in one case while vacating the sentence in another case arising from the same appeal.
[2] Improper questioning of witnesses by a trial court or prosecutor may constitute harmless error if the evidence of guilt is overwhelming.
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 overwhelming evidence against Young is consistent with the convictions and there is no reasonable possibility that the alleged errors could have had any effect on the jury verdict.”
Establishes the harmless error analysis applied to the trial court and prosecutorial errors in questioning witnesses.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceYoung was convicted of robbery at a restaurant where three masked gunmen participated. Multiple witnesses testified all three robbers were masked and …
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.
PETERSON, J.
Reginald Young appeals the judgment and sentence imposed in circuit court ease 92-11723 and the sentence imposed in case number 91-6924. We affirm the judgment and sentence in the first case, but vacate the sentence in the latter. As to case 92-11723, Young contends that the trial court questioned two of the state’s witnesses in such a manner which improperly conveyed to the jury the trial court’s personal belief as to their credibility. He further contends that the prosecutor improperly asked leading questions of the same two witnesses. The two witnesses were co-perpetrators of the crimes charged. The questioning by both the trial court and the prosecutor related to the witnesses’ loss of memory at trial regarding their earlier plea hearings in which they implicated Young in the crimes.
We find that any error was harmless. Multiple witnesses who were present at the restaurant testified that all three robbers were masked and carried guns during the robberies. The arresting officer pursued Young when he saw him running from the area where the restaurant was located, and he saw Young throw a gun into a sewer with his right hand while he held a black mask with his left hand. When Young was apprehended, he was in possession of personal property connected to the crime scene: a gold bracelet, $118 in currency — including two bills that were part of the restaurant’s bait money — and two socks that were worn over his hands during the robbery. The overwhelming evidence against Young is consistent with the convictions and there is no reasonable possibility that the alleged errors could have had any effect on the jury verdict. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986).
The state concedes that the trial court erred when it sentenced the appellant to three concurrent ten year terms pursuant to his violation of the terms of his probation in case number 91-6924. The appellant was originally sentenced as a youthful offender on those offenses and cannot receive total prison sentences in excess of six years for these crimes. State v. Amette, 604 So. 2d 482 (Fla.1992). Accordingly, we vacate the sentences on that case only and remand for resentencing.
We find no merit in the remaining issues raised by the appellant.
AFFIRMED IN PART; SENTENCES VACATED IN PART; REMANDED.
GOSHORN and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Isaiah Dunbar v. State, 664 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…x year terms of imprisonment with credit for time served on count I only. Since Dunbar’s probation was revoked for technical violations, he can only be sentenced to a total of six years. State v. Arnette, 604 So. 2d 482 (Fla.1992); Young v. State, 654 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Darden v. State, 641 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). A youthful offender can be sentenced in excess of six years after revocation of probation if the violation was substantive. See § 958.14, Fla.Stat. (1993); Reeves v. State, 605…
-
Rogers v. State, 972 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…continue that status and only resen-tence the defendant as a youthful offender for a violation of the probation or community control portion of his youthful offender sentence.”); Gardner v. State, 656 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Young v. State, 654 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Youthful offender status may be revoked when the defendant is charged and convicted with a new, substantive offense. See Boynton v. State, 896 So. 2d 898, 899 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). However, if the defendant is not charged by info…
Authorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- State v. Arnette, 604 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 1992)