JOHN W. ELLIS, 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 judge did not abuse discretion in admitting hearsay statements and denying motions to suppress and for directed verdict. The court also rejected constitutional challenges to the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act.
Appellant was convicted by a jury of capital sexual battery and burglary of a dwelling with assault or battery. He appealed his judgments and sentence…
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 Burglary Of A Dwelling With An Assault Or Battery cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant, John W. Ellis, challenges his judgments and sentences for capital sexual battery and burglary of a dwelling with assault or battery. Appellant was tried by jury and found guilty of both charges. We affirm.
Appellant argues that the trial judge abused his discretion in admitting the child victim’s hearsay statements under the child victim exception and the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. The trial judge carefully considered the reliability of the statements and we find no abuse of discretion in their admission. Neither do we find error in the denial of Appellant’s motion to suppress his statements, admissions or confessions. In addition, there was sufficient evidence of both Appellant’s identity as the perpetrator of the offenses and of his criminal conduct to support the denial of his motion for directed verdict.
Appellant attacks the constitutionality of the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act, section 775.082(8), Florida Statutes (1997), and alleges error in sentencing Appellant to life in prison on the burglary charge under that act. We reject Appellant’s arguments. See State v. Cowart, 24 Fla L. Weekly D1085, — So. 2d -, 1999 WL 245876 (Fla. 2d DCA April 28,1999); State v. Cotton, 728 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Young v. State, 719 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), review denied, 727 So. 2d 915 (Fla.1999).
We certify conflict as we did in Cowart with McKnight v. State, 727 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) and Woods v. State, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D831, 740 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).
Affirmed.
FULMER and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ellis v. State, 762 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 2000)…PER CURIAM. We have for review the decision in Ellis v. State, 740 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), in which the Second District certified conflict with Woods v. State, 740 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We recently approved the First District’s decision in Woods, holdi…
-
Williams v. State, 743 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…n Releasee Reoffender Act, section 775.082(8), Florida Statutes (1997). Since this court has found the Act constitutional in the face of a separation of powers challenge, we affirm and certify conflict in No. 98-00534, as we did in Ellis v. State, 740 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 2d DCA [*1155] 1999) and State v. Cowart, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D1085, — So. 2d -, 1999 WL 245876 (Fla. 2d DCA Apr.28, 1999), with McKnight v. State, 727 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) and Woods v. State, 740 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Howeve…
Authorities Cited
- Woods v. State, 740 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- McKNIGHT v. State, 727 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Jewell F. Raimondo v. Am. United Life Ins. Co., 728 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- State v. Cotton, 728 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Barfield v. State, 719 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Young v. State, 719 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)