ALONZO A. HAMILTON, 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.
Hamilton was convicted of burglary and malicious mischief and appealed on the ground that the trial court improperly allowed impeachment using his prior convictions, arguing those prior convictions were juvenile adjudications inadmissible under Florida law. The appellate court affirmed, holding that because Hamilton was tried and adjudicated guilty as an adult despite being a minor at the time of the offenses, the prior convictions were not "juvenile adjudications" within the meaning of the statute prohibiting their use for impeachment.
Prior convictions are not "juvenile adjudications" within the meaning of section 90.610(1)(b) merely because the defendant was a minor at the time of the offenses, if the defendant was actually tried and adjudicated guilty as an adult in the proceedings for those prior crimes.
[1] Evidence of juvenile adjudications is inadmissible for impeachment purposes under section 90.610(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1997).
[2] A prior conviction is not considered a juvenile adjudication for impeachment purposes if the defendant was tried and adjudicated guilty of the crimes as an adult, even if…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Evidence of juvenile adjudications are inadmissible under this subsection.”
States the statutory bar on using juvenile adjudications for impeachment under Florida Statute section 90.610(1)(b).
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHamilton was convicted after jury trial of burglary of a dwelling and malicious mischief. Seven months prior to trial, he had been convicted of armed …
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 Impeachment By Prior Conviction cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, J.
Hamilton was convicted, after jury trial, of burglary of a dwelling and malicious mischief. He argues on appeal that the trial court committed reversible error by allowing him to be impeached by the introduction of his prior convictions, some seven months pri-or to trial, of armed burglary of a dwelling, grand theft of a firearm, and misdemeanor possession of a firearm by a minor. Hamilton was a minor at the time of these prior offenses and had been sentenced therefor as a juvenile. Nevertheless, he had been tried and adjudicated guilty of those crimes as an adult.
Hamilton argues that the use of juvenile adjudications for purposes of impeachment is expressly precluded in Florida by section 90.610(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1997):
Conviction of certain crimes as impeachment.—
(1) A party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of 1 year under the law under which the witness was convicted, or if the crime involved dishonesty or a false statement regardless of the punishment, with the following exceptions:
* * * * *
(b) Evidence of juvenile adjudications are inadmissible under this subsection.
The state responds that the proscription in section 90.610(l)(b) does not apply to the prior convictions of Hamilton for the reason that he was tried for them as an adult, and the judgment of guilt shows that those were not “juvenile adjudications” as contemplated by the statute.
We cannot agree with the appellant that the earlier judgments of guilt as to the felonies of armed burglary and grand theft with a firearm and the misdemeanor possession of a -firearm constituted “juvenile adjudications.” The appellant alludes to “an adjudication of delinquency” in respect to these prior convictions. This allusion apparently is based upon the failure by the trial court in those earlier cases to strike out a reference in a printed sentence form to commission of a delinquent act. Nevertheless, the judgment itself, wherein the trial judge personally filled in the three crimes for which Hamilton was adjudicated, leaves no doubt that judgment was not merely a finding of delinquency-We find no merit in the other grounds argued on appeal by Hamilton.
AFFIRMED.
GOSHORN and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marshall v. Merrill A. Bookstein, 789 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…eparate affidavit.” Failure to support the motion with the party’s sworn signature or affidavit has been found to be a basis for denial of the motion. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Carter, 768 So. 2d 21, 22 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)(citing Gaines v. State, 722 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Cardinal v. Wendy’s of S. Fla., Inc., 529 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)). Here, the motion to disqualify was not signed under oath by petitioners. However, it was accompanied by an affidavit of the individual petitioner, Marsha…