WILLIE SANDERS, 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 trial court did not err in admitting evidence of the defendant's prior conviction because the issue was not preserved and, even if it were, the error was harmless.
The defendant was involved in a bank robbery, crashed a vehicle while fleeing, and left behind a firearm and dye pack. The teller identified him as ca…
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 Unfair Prejudice cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, J.
The issue in this case is whether, under Brown v. State, 719 So. 2d 882 (Fla.1998), the court erred in not accepting the defendant’s stipulation that he was a convicted felon rather than revealing his prior conviction to the jury.
First, it does not appear the issue is preserved. Although defense counsel indicated a willingness to stipulate, a stipulation was not proffered. Nor was there any indication that the defendant personally agreed to the stipulation. Finally, there were no objections made when the certified copies of the prior convictions were received in evidence and shown to the jury-
Further, even if error, the error was harmless in this case. Brown is premised on the belief that unfair prejudice might result if the jury knows the details of the defendant’s previous record. Here, Sanders, along with an accomplice, while being chased from the scene of a bank robbery, crashed his vehicle into the wall of a supermarket, jumped from the vehicle with hundred dollar bills all around him, and left behind a firearm and dye pack on the passenger floorboard of his vehicle. Sanders was identified by the teller as being the one who carried the firearm. Based on this evidence, we find that the introduction of Sanders’ prior record, beyond a reasonable doubt, did not affect the jury verdict in this case.
AFFIRMED.
COBB and THOMPSON, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Whitfield v. State, 749 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…ear sentence as a habitual offender, the express terms of the plea agreement would be satisfied. Whitfield was sentenced to fifteen years’ incarceration as a habitual offender. This issue is completely meritless. . At first blush, Sanders v. State, 734 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), appears to suggest [*573] that the error in Whitfield’s case was likely harmless because, as in Sanders, Whitfield was positively identified by at least one eyewitness. In Sanders, however, the jury apparently had to decide whet…
Authorities Cited
- Phillips v. State, 719 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1998)