WILLIAM JENNINGS, 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.
William Jennings appealed his armed robbery conviction and sentence under the Prisoner Releasee Reoffender Act, challenging the admission of collateral crime evidence regarding a subsequent robbery attempt and the constitutionality of the sentencing statute. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding the evidentiary issue was not preserved for review and rejecting all constitutional challenges to the Act.
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that Jennings failed to contemporaneously object to the admission of the collateral crime evidence and thus did not preserve the issue for review. Additionally, the court rejected all constitutional challenges to the Prisoner Releasee Reoffender Act, including claims that it violates separation of powers, equal protection, cruel and unusual punishment, and due process.
[1] Failure to contemporaneously object to the admission of evidence waives the issue for appellate review.
[2] A defendant must demonstrate prejudicial error even if an issue is preserved for appellate review.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Because appellant failed to contemporaneously object to the admission of the disputed evidence, we find that this issue is not preserved for review.”
Establishes the requirement of timely, specific objections to preserve issues for appellate review; Jennings' general inquiry without substantive objection was insufficient.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJennings was charged with armed robbery after robbing a night auditor at gunpoint at the Comfort Inn. Approximately one month later, the same auditor …
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 Opening The Door (Evidence) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, William Jennings, challenges his conviction and sentence for armed robbery and argues that the trial court erred in allowing the State to admit collateral crime evidence of a subsequent robbery attempt and erred in sentencing him pursuant to the Prisoner Releasee Reoffender Act because the Act is unconstitutional. We affirm.
Appellant was charged by information with robbery with a deadly weapon and tried by jury after a night auditor at the Comfort Inn notified police that appellant robbed him at gunpoint. Prior to trial, appellant moved the court in limine to exclude evidence that approximately one month after the armed robbery at issue in this case, appellant attempted to rob the same night auditor at the Holiday Inn Express. According to the night auditor, during the robbery at the Holiday Inn, appellant allegedly stated, “Aren’t you the person I robbed at the Comfort Inn last month?” The trial court granted appellant’s pre-trial motion in limine and ruled that appellant’s statement to the victim would be admitted but the circumstances under which it was allegedly made — the robbery at the Holiday Inn — would be excluded. See Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 847, 80 S.Ct. 102, 4 L.Ed.2d 86 (1959).
At trial, the judge receded from her ruling on the pre-trial motion in limine and stated that she would admit testimony regarding the attempted robbery at the Holiday Inn because appellant had “opened the door” to such evidence. When the court made its ruling, Jennings’ counsel stated only, “Please forgive me, I’m not exactly sure what it was in the prior testimony that opened the door to this.” Upon receiving an explanation that Jennings opened the door to such evidence when he testified that he committed the Comfort Inn robbery but denied having a gun, defense counsel made no further comments or objections. Defense counsel did not offer a specific objection which would have allowed the trial court to reconsider its ruling in light of the issue raised by appellant. Because appellant failed to contemporaneously object to the admission of the disputed evidence, we find that this issue is not preserved for review. See Lawrence v. State, 614 So. 2d 1092, 1094 (Fla.1993); Coffee v. State, 699 So. 2d 299, 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
Furthermore, we find that based on the record in the instant case, even if the issue had been preserved, appellant would not have met his burden of demonstrating prejudicial error. Appellant also challenges the constitutionality of the Prisoner Releasee Reoffender Act. We previously addressed and rejected appellant’s arguments that the Act violates the prohibition against ex post facto laws and the single-subject rule. See Plain v. State, 720 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), rev. denied, 727 So. 2d 909 (Fla.1999); Young v. State, 719 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), rev. denied, 727 So. 2d 915 (Fla.1999).
After careful consideration, we likewise reject appellant’s argument that the Act (1) violates the separation of powers doctrine because it infringes upon the prosecutor’s power to plea bargain with a defendant1; (2) violates the right to equal protection because the Act applies only to offenders released from state prison within three years prior to committing an enumerated offense; (3) constitutes cruel and unusual punishment; (4) violates procedural due process because the exceptions are void for vagueness; and (5) violates substantive due process.
AFFIRMED.
WARNER, C.J., STONE and STEVENSON, JJ., concur. . See Fairweather v. State, 505 So. 2d 653, 654 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)(holding that the law recognizes no constitutional right to plea bargain). We recognize that we certified the question of whether the Prisoner Releasee Reoffender Act violates the separation of powers clause of the Florida Constitution in Simmons v. State, No. 98-2792, - So. 2d -, 1999 WL 565829 (Fla. 4th DCA August 4, 1999). Jennings, however, does not assert the same separation of powers argument raised by Simmons.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Verro Chambers v. State, 752 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…releasee reoffender act violates the separation of powers doctrine were addressed and rejected by this court in Woods. See also Reyes v. State, 742 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Grant v. State, 745 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Jennings v. State, 744 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Smith v. State, 753 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). In Woods and Reyes, this court certified the question whether the prison releasee reoffender punishment act violates the separation of powers clause of the Florida Constitutio…1 / 3
-
Crumbley v. State, 876 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…court in Coffee v. State, 699 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), extended application of the contemporaneous objection rule to instances where the motion in limine was granted and then violated during the course of the trial. See also Jennings v. State, 744 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (finding that defense counsel’s failure to offer a specific objection to evidence admitted after the court receded from a previously granted order in limine waived the issue for review). It is not necessary for us to decide wheth…
-
Edwards v. State, 753 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…(8) 1 Florida Statutes, on grounds of substantive due process, cruel and unusual punishment, and vagueness. This court has previously [*579] rejected all such challenges. See Rollinson v. State, 743 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Jennings v. State, 744 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); accord Turner v. State, 745 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Woods v. State, 740 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), rev. granted, 740 So. 2d 529 (Fla.1999). As to all other issues, we also affirm. DELL and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur. .…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Williams v. Florida, 361 U.S. 847 (U.S. 1959)
- White v. Illinois, 361 U.S. 847 (U.S. 1959)
- Plain v. State, 720 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Lawrence v. State, 614 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 1993)
- Barfield v. State, 719 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Young v. State, 719 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Fairweather v. State, 505 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Coffee v. State, 699 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)