STEPHEN DRAGANI, 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.
Stephen Dragani appeals his convictions for bank robbery and threatening to discharge a destructive device. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirms his convictions but vacates and remands his sentences, finding that the trial court improperly imposed concurrent sentences under both the Habitual Offender and Prison Releasee Reoffender statutes.
The convictions are affirmed. The videotape and photographs were properly authenticated based on the bank officer's testimony regarding the camera's installation, operation, and his identification of the defendant during the robbery with no evidence of tampering. The restitution issue was not preserved for appeal because Dragani failed to file a motion to correct sentence and there was no fundamental error. However, the sentences must be vacated because the trial court improperly imposed concurrent sentences under both the Habitual Offender and Prison Releasee Reoffender statutes for both crimes.
[1] A videotape and photographs made from the tape are sufficiently authenticated when a bank officer testifies to the camera's installation and operation, his directing the…
[2] An order imposing restitution that is not mentioned at the sentencing hearing does not constitute fundamental error and is not preserved for appeal if the defendant does…
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“There was sufficient evidence to authenticate the videotape and photographs made from the tape based on the bank officer's testimony as to the installation and operation of the video camera in the bank, his directing the camera at the defendant during the robbery, and his identification of the date and time the video was made.”
Establishes the standard for authenticating video evidence in criminal proceedings and affirms the trial court's admission of the video evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDragani was convicted of bank robbery and threatening to discharge a destructive device. A videotape and photographs taken during the robbery were adm…
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 Authentication Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
[*746] W. SHARP, J.
Dragani appeals from a final judgment and sentence after being convicted of a bank robbery1 and threatening to discharge a destructive device.2 He argues that the trial court erred in admitting a videotape taken at the bank during the course of the robbery and admitting photographs made from the tape without proper authentication, imposing restitution in the amount of $4,540.00, sentencing him pursuant to the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act3 because it is unconstitutional, and sentencing him as an habitual violent felony offender and a PRR for both crimes.
We affirm the convictions. There was sufficient evidence to authenticate the videotape and photographs made from the tape based on the bank officer’s testimony as to the installation and operation of the video camera in the bank, his directing the camera at the defendant during the robbery, and his identification of the date and time the video was made. In addition, there was no evidence of tampering. Dolan v. State, 743 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Wagner v. State, 707 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).
We also find Dragani’s argument, as to restitution, without merit. Although there was no mention of restitution at the sentencing hearing, an order was entered which imposed an amount roughly equal to the amount stolen from the bank, less funds recovered. This does not constitute fundamental error. See Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla.2000); Yates v. State, 738 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Further, Dragani did not file a motion to correct sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b). Thus, -this issue was not preserved for appeal. See Noland v. State, 734 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Mitchell v. State, 664 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).
However, we agree with Dragani that the trial court should not have sentenced him for both crimes under both the Habitual Offender and the Prison Releasee Reoffender statutes. Adams v. State, 750 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Melton v. State, 746 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Glave. v. State, 745 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). In Thomas v. State, 745 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), we held that concurrent sentences as a violent career criminal and a PRR for two counts of lewd and lascivious act in the presence of a child, violated the defendant’s double jeopardy rights. However, we acknowledge conflict with Grant v. State, 745 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
Accordingly, we vacate Dragani’s sentences and remand the cause for resentencing under the harsher penalty as an habitual offender. We do not reach the issue of the constitutionality of the Prisoner Releasee Reoffender Act and thus decline to certify conflict with the second and fourth districts. Alexander v. State, 739 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Moon v. State, 737 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Cook v. State, 737 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), cert. granted, No. SC96399, 761 So. 2d 327 (Fla. Feb. 21, 2000).
AFFIRMED in part; REMANDED in part for resentencing.
ANTOON, C.J., and GRIFFIN, J., concur. . § 812.13, Fla. Stat. (1997).
. § 790.162, Fla. Stat. (1997).
.§ 782.082(8), Fla. Stat. (1997).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Khadafy Kareem Mullens v. State, 197 So. 3d 16 (Fla. 2016)…of surveillance footage during the determination of guilt is satisfied upon the testimony of an individual, such as an employee or business owner, who Was familiar with the installation and operation of the surveillance equipment. Dragani v. State, 759 So. 2d 745, 746 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) quashed in part on other grounds, 791 So. 2d 1083 (Fla.2001); Dolan v. State, 743 So. 2d 544, 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Additionally, in Wagner v. State, 707 So. 2d 827, 830 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), the First District held that a…
-
Veleka Bryant v. State, 810 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…the jury) depict, the defense conceded their identity, and explicitly refrained from any objection on that ground.6 We see no reason to disturb the trial court’s finding that the original time lapse videotapes were authentic. See Dragani v. State, 759 So. 2d 745, 746 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (finding the evidence sufficient to authenticate a videotape and photographs made from the videotape where a bank employee testified as to the installation and operation of the bank’s video camera, and the date and time the…
-
State v. Dragani, 791 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 2001)…LEWIS, J. We have for review Dragani v. State, 759 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We approve the decision of the district court in affirming the respondent’s convictions. However, we quash that part of the district court’s decision as it relates to th…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (18 total)
- Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2000)
- Pollock v. Couffer, 750 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Ames v. State, 745 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Grant v. State, 745 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Wagner v. State, 707 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Glave v. State, 745 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Noland v. State, 734 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Douglas v. State, 664 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Dolan v. State, 743 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Thomas v. State, 745 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)