BRUCE DAVIS, 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 affirmed the burglary conviction and sentence, but remanded to correct the sentencing scoresheet and strike certain costs and fees imposed without proper procedure.
[1] A trial court's error in restricting a defendant's cross-examination of a victim is subject to harmless error analysis.
[2] An error in imposing costs or fees at sentencing is reversible unless the state can demonstrate the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
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 intelligenceDefendant was convicted of burglary. The trial court restricted cross-examination of the victim, made a sentencing scoresheet error, and improperly im…
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 Investigative Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Bruce Davis appeals the final judgment and sentence of his burglary conviction. We affirm the judgment and sentence except as to the trial court’s imposition of costs, and we direct the trial court to correct the points assessed on the sentencing guidelines score-sheet.
In this case, there was sufficient evidence to deny Davis’s motion for judgment of acquittal. Although error did occur when the trial court granted the State’s motion in limine which restricted Davis’s cross-examination of the victim regarding her pending charges, that error is subject to a harmless error analysis. See Larkins v. State, 655 So. 2d 95 (Fla.1995). Because the evidence presented a strong case against Davis, there was no “reasonable possibility that the disclosure of the impeaching material would have affected the verdict.” Id. Accordingly, the error was harmless.
Furthermore, we agree that there was a sentencing guidelines scoresheet error because of the four points assessed for slight victim injury; however, the record supports that the trial court imposed a sentence within the guidelines and that it would have imposed the same sentence even with the deletion of the four points. Accordingly, the sentence is not illegal and the error was harmless. See Sprankle v. State, 662 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).
Finally, Davis correctly argues that the trial court erred by imposing investigative costs without requiring proper documentation and by imposing attorney’s fees without notice. In fact, the record supports that attorney’s fees were never addressed at sentencing. Accordingly, we strike these costs and fees; however, upon remand the trial court may reimpose these costs in accordance with Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (en banc).
We affirm the judgment and sentence, but strike the investigative costs and attorney’s fees. Additionally, upon remand, we direct the trial court to correct the scoresheet by deleting the four points for slight victim injury-
PARKER, C.J., and ALTENBERND and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wyon Dale Childers v. State, 936 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…n viewed in the context of the overwhelming evidence of guilt and the “questionable weight” of the excluded cross examination evidence, the trial court’s error in limiting defendant’s impeachment of witnesses was harmless). See also, Davis v. State, 711 So. 2d 1314 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (holding that because there was strong evidence of defendant’s guilt, the trial court’s error in granting the State’s motion in limine preventing the cross examination of victim regarding pending charges was harmless). The State’s…
-
Williams v. State, 779 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…tent to sell. We affirm Williams’ judgment and sentence without discussion; however, we conclude that the attorney’s fee lien imposed in the amount of $3,180, was entered without notice to Williams and an opportunity to be heard. See Davis v. State, 711 So. 2d 1314 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). The record shows that, pursuant to Bain v. State, 730 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), this error was properly preserved in the trial court. We therefore strike the fee lien. On remand, the trial court may reimpose the lien if, aft…
-
Moore v. State, 812 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…[*571] PER CURIAM. See Kramer v. State, 619 So. 2d 274 (Fla.1993); Davis v. State, 711 So. 2d 1314 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). AFFIRMED. COBB, SHARP, W., and PALMER, JJ., concur.…
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
- Abel Oliveros Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Larkins v. State, 655 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 1995)
- Sprankle v. State, 662 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)