ERIC STEPHENS, 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.
The court held that the witness identification procedure was not impermissibly suggestive, but the trial court erred in imposing unauthorized assessments and conditions not mentioned at sentencing.
The defendant was convicted of robbery with a firearm and aggravated assault based on witness identification. He appealed, arguing the photo lineup wa…
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 Sentencing Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, Judge.
Eric Stephens robbed an ABC liquor store using a firearm. He was observed by Dan Lanci, Rhonda Michaels and Shelly Timmer-man. He was subsequently apprehended and, based on identification of these witnesses, was convicted of robbery with a firearm and aggravated assault. He appeals; we affirm his conviction but reverse that portion of his sentence which imposes unauthorized assessments and conditions not mentioned at sentencing.
Stephens contends that the witness identification resulted from an impermissibly suggestive photo lineup. The pictorial lineup is a single sheet containing six individual pictures. All of the pictures are of black men of similar age; all have similar hair styles and similar facial hair. While it is true that the face of the defendant stands out slightly because his picture is somewhat larger than the others, other pictures in the lineup are also distinctive in that either the shoulders of the person pictured (as opposed to merely their necks) are shown or the type of shirt (open-collar, T-shirt, or undershirt) is revealed. The trial judge ruled that the lineup was not unduly suggestive. We find no error in this ruling. The defense was permitted to argue the suggestiveness of the lineup to the jury, which also rejected the contention.
We agree that the court erred in imposing conditions of probation not mentioned during the sentencing hearing (Justice v. State, 674 So. 2d 123 (Fla.1996)) and in imposing a fee for “First Step of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Inc.” since the fee was not mentioned at sentencing and in any case there was no authority for the assessment at the time of the offense.
We find Stephen’s other point to be without merit.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part and REMANDED for further action consistent with this opinion.
W. SHARP and ANTOON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomas v. State, 748 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 1999)…d part of the test. See Green v. State, 641 So. 2d 391, 394 (Fla.1994); Grant, 390 So. 2d at 344. Florida law has upheld the use of photo spreads containing six individual pictures. See Lewis v. State, 572 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 1990); Stephens v. State, 693 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Under the above-stated test, Thomas’s claim must fail. Detective Davis testified that he did not suggest to Elvord which photo to pick. He also testified that he did not tell her that she had to pick a photo from either spread.…
Authorities Cited
- Justice v. State, 674 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 1996)