CHARLES H. WADDY, 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.
Charles Waddy appeals his conviction for two counts of attempted manslaughter, challenging the admission of expert testimony, denial of a mistrial motion, denial of a judgment of acquittal, and his consecutive sentence. The appellate court affirms the conviction and sentence, finding no abuse of discretion or legal error.
The trial court properly admitted expert testimony as it was based on witness observations and police investigation. Any error in Woods's testimony was invited by defense counsel and harmless. The motion for judgment of acquittal was properly denied because Waddy admitted participating in the shootings with knowledge of Holland's intent to kill and firing shots himself. The consecutive sentence of 122.6 months is lawful under Florida law, which permits imposition of guideline sentences even when they exceed statutory maximums.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony based on information provided by witnesses and investigating officers at the scene.
[2] A mistrial motion based on testimony identifying a source of information is properly denied when the defense counsel invited the testimony and the error, if any, is harml…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Waddy admitted participating in the shootings. He admitted that Holland had expressed an intent to kill Shade, and he went to the woods with Holland and Delaine and fired shots, thus, participating in the crime.”
Establishes the factual basis for affirming the attempted manslaughter conviction based on Waddy's admitted participation and knowledge of the intent to kill.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWaddy admitted participating in shootings with Holland and Delaine. Holland had expressed an intent to kill a victim named Shade. Waddy went to the wo…
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 Intent To Participate In Crime cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIFFIN, J.
Charles Waddy appeals the judgment and sentence imposed after a jury found him guilty of two counts of attempted manslaughter. Waddy contends that the court erred (1) in allowing certain expert testimony; (2) in denying his motion for mistrial, (3) in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal; and (4) in sentencing him consecutively and in excess of the statutory maximum. We find no merit to any of these claims and affirm.
As to the first issue, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the testimony of Chris Trumble. There was testimony from several witnesses regarding the location the muzzle fire came from. Trumble’s measurements were based on information provided by witnesses at the scene and by officers who had investigated the scene the night of the shooting.
As to the second issue, we agree with the State that the error, if any, in Woods’s testimony was both invited and harmless. Woods identified Holland as a source of information only after being repeatedly asked by defense counsel to name those who had provided information as to the shooters’ location in the woods. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Woods’s motion for mistrial. See, e.g., Gorby v. State, 630 So. 2d 544, 547 (Fla.1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 828, 115 S.Ct. 99, 130 L.Ed.2d 48 (1994).
Waddy also contends that the court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal. Waddy argues that his convictions for attempted manslaughter are contrary to the law and the weight of the evidence. He avers that the State failed to present direct or circumstantial evidence that he intended to participate in the crime and failed to show that he committed an act which was intended to cause the death of the victims. The State responds first that Waddy did not preserve this argument for review because it was not made below.
Assuming arguendo that this issue has been preserved, the State is correct that Waddy’s motion was properly denied. Waddy admitted participating in the shootings. He admitted that Holland had expressed an intent to kill Shade, and he went to the woods with Holland and De-laine and fired shots, thus, participating in the crime. Finally, Waddy argues that he was im-permissibly sentenced to consecutive sentences and that the 122.6-month sentence is illegal because it exceeds the statutory maximum by 2.6 months. The scoresheet that was used at sentencing yielded a maximum guidelines sentence of 122.6 months. Waddy was sentenced to 5 years (60 months) on count I and 5 years and 2.6 months (62.6 months) on count II, for a total of 122.6 months — the guideline maximum. Subsection 921.001(5), Florida Statutes (1997), provides in part that “[i]f a recommended sentence under the guidelines exceeds the maximum sentence authorized by s. 775.082, the sentence under the guidelines must be imposed, absent a departure.” See also Mays v. State, 717 So. 2d 515 (Fla.1998); Green v. State, 715 So. 2d 259 (Fla.1998).
AFFIRMED.
COBB and PETERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Mays v. State, 717 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1998)
- Olen Clay Gorby v. State, 630 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 1993)
- Deno S. Green v. State, 715 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 1998)
- Ferguson v. United States, 513 U.S. 828 (U.S. 1994)
- Blakemore v. United States, 513 U.S. 828 (U.S. 1994)