RODERICK STOKES, 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.
Roderick Stokes appealed his conviction for armed robbery with a firearm and attempted first degree murder, challenging the trial court's refusal to admit reverse-Williams Rule evidence and his sentence of twenty-seven years followed by life probation on a life felony. The appellate court affirmed the evidentiary ruling but reversed the sentencing as exceeding the statutory maximum.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in disallowing the reverse-Williams Rule evidence because the similarities offered did not meet the requisite degree of similarity for relevancy. However, the sentence of a term of years followed by life probation exceeds the statutory maximum of forty years for a life felony and must be reconsidered on remand.
[1] Reverse-Williams Rule evidence is admissible to identify the perpetrator only when the similarities between the prior offense and the current offense are sufficiently clo…
[2] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in disallowing reverse-Williams Rule evidence when the proffered similarities between the offenses are not sufficiently unique…
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 test for admissibility of similar-fact evidence is relevancy. When the purported relevancy of past crimes is to identify the perpetrator of the crime being tried, we have required a close similarity of facts, a unique or "fingerprint" type of information, for the evidence to be relevant.”
Establishes the legal standard for reverse-Williams Rule evidence admissibility
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStokes was convicted of armed robbery with a firearm and attempted first degree murder. The defense sought to introduce reverse-Williams Rule evidence…
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 Life Felony cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.
Roderick Stokes seeks review of his conviction for armed robbery with a firearm and attempted first degree murder. He contends that the trial court erred in refusing to allow reverse-Williams1 Rule evidence and in sentencing him to twenty-seven years’ imprisonment followed by life probation on a life felony. Because the revers e-Williams Rule evidence was not sufficiently similar to meet the test of relevancy, we affirm the trial court’s ruling, but we reverse for the sentencing error. Regarding the reverse-Williams Rule evidence, the record shows that the only similarities between the underlying offense and the similar act were the victim’s nationality and the fact that the same individual claimed in each case to have been outside the residences where the shootings occurred. The appellant’s counsel made no proffer. “This court cannot speculate what any proffered testimony would have been in determining whether it was error not to allow it.” Williams v. State, 600 So. 2d 524, 525 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).
In any event, the only similarities offered do not evince the requisite degree of similarity so as to require their admission.
The test for admissibility of similar-fact evidence is relevancy. When the purported relevancy of past crimes is to identify the perpetrator of the crime being tried, we have required a close similarity of facts, a unique or “fingerprint” type of information, for the evidence to be relevant. If a defendant’s purpose is to shift suspicion from himself to another person, evidence of past criminal conduct of that other person should be of such nature that it would be admissible if that person were on trial for the present offense.
State v. Savino, 567 So. 2d 892, 894 (Fla.1990) (citations omitted). We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in disallowing the revers e-Williams Rule evidence.
The trial court must resentence the appellant because a sentence of a term of years followed by life probation exceeds the statutory maximum of forty years on a life felony. Dyer v. State, 629 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for resentencing.
SCHOONOVER and QUINCE, JJ., concur. . Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 847, 80 S.Ct. 102, 4 L.Ed.2d 86 (1959).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Keen v. State, 775 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2000)…herefore, the basic premise of Keen’s argument has no factual basis. Second, as a general rule, an appellate court “cannot speculate what any proffered testimony would have been in determining whether it was error not to allow it.” Stokes v. State, 658 So. 2d 1159, 1160 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (quoting Williams v. State, 600 So. 2d 524, 525 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)). Further, this Court has explained that reverse Williams-rvle evidence “requires the same showing of relevance as evidence offered by the prosecution.” Kimb…
-
Kiev Rayvon Robinson v. State, 37 So. 3d 921 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…ce was for a term of years, the additional sentence of probation for life would exceed the forty-year limit. See Routenberg v. State, 721 So. 2d 1187, 1187 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Walker v. State, 660 So. 2d 332, 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Stokes v. State, 658 So. 2d 1159, 1160 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). But Mr. Robinson’s argument is incorrect. Because Mr. Robinson committed the offense after July 1, 1995, the applicable statute is section 775.082(3)(a)(3) — not section 775.082(3)(a)(2). Under subsection (3)(a)(3), the t…
-
Chaudoin v. State, 707 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…urt abused its discretion by excluding this line of impeachment. In any event, it is not clear that such evidence would establish grounds to infer bias in this case on Danny’s part. See Kimbrough v. State, 700 So. 2d 634 (Fla.1997); Stokes v. State, 658 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995);. Traina v. State, 657 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Finally, Chaudoin argues that the trial court allowed the state to improperly impeach Goble, a witness the defense had called [*816] in its case, with a prior statement.' In…
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
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Williams v. Florida, 361 U.S. 847 (U.S. 1959)
- White v. Illinois, 361 U.S. 847 (U.S. 1959)
- State v. Savino, 567 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 1990)
- Dyer v. State, 629 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Williams v. State, 600 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)