DAWANE MITCHELL, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing, denying a motion to exclude evidence, or excluding evidence under the Rape Shield Law.
The defendant appealed his convictions and sentences, raising multiple points. The court reviewed three specific issues regarding sentencing, discover…
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 Rape Shield Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant, Dawane Mitchell, appeals from his convictions and sentences. The defendant raises numerous points on appeal, but only three merit a brief discussion.
First, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a more severe sentence upon the defendant after trial than the plea offer made by the court at the close of the State’s ease-in-chief. A review of the record reveals that the reasons for the more severe sentence affirmatively appear in the record so as to assure the absence of vindictiveness. Fraley v. State, 426 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
Next, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the defendant’s motion to exclude his blood and saliva samples where the trial court conducted a Richardson1 hearing and concluded that the State’s alleged discovery violation was inadvertent and did not prejudice the defendant. Vena v. State, 295 So. 2d 720, 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 307 So. 2d 184 (Fla.1975).
Lastly, we find that the trial court properly excluded evidence concerning the victim’s prior sexual relationship with the defendant’s brother where the defense failed to show that the testimony fell within an exception to the Rape Shield Law. § 794.022(2), Fla. Stat. (1995). More specifically, the defense’s proffer was insufficient to establish a pattern of conduct or behavior on the part of the victim that was so similar to the conduct or behavior in the case that it was relevant to the issue of consent. Young v. State, 562 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Hodges v. State, 386 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).
Accordingly, we affirm the defendant’s convictions and sentences.
. Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wiltzer v. State, 756 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…would become relevant and more probative than prejudicial. Since the trial court conducted an adequate Richardson hearing on the late-disclosed evidence, we review its decision to admit the evidence for an abuse of discretion. See Mitchell v. State, 695 So. 2d 810, 810 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). Appellant subsequently introduced testimony concerning Officer Ragsdale’s civil suit; therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the photographs. See Medina v. State, 466 So. 2d 1046 (Fla.1985). By…
Authorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- Fraley v. State, 426 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Hodges v. State, 386 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Vena v. State, 295 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Vance Anthony Young v. State, 562 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Vena v. State, 307 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 1975)