CHRISTOPHER S. CORINTHIAN, 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.
Christopher Corinthian appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions based on properly admitted collateral crime evidence establishing identity, but reversed the sentences imposed under multiple felony enhancement statutes and remanded for resentencing.
The collateral crime evidence was properly admitted as it demonstrated sufficient similarities in the circumstances of the robberies to establish identity under the Williams Rule. However, sentences cannot be imposed under both the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act and habitual felony offender provisions simultaneously.
[1] Collateral crime evidence is admissible to prove identity when there are numerous similarities between the collateral crimes and the crimes for which the defendant is on…
[2] Similarities between collateral crimes and charged offenses, including victim location, perpetrator description, weapon used, modus operandi, duration, and timeframe, can…
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 are numerous similarities between the collateral crimes admitted and the crimes for which Corinthian was on trial. The similarities include: (1) all three robbery victims were staying alone at the Budget Inn at 2731 North Federal Highway; (2) all three victims' room doors were ajar; (3) all three robberies were committed by a black male about 6'1 — 6'3, 220-240 pounds; (4) the intruder in all three robberies wielded a silver-chrome revolver; (5) all three victims were threatened and forced to lie on the floor by their bed; (6) all three victims were forced into the bathroom prior to the gunman's getaway; (7) all three robberies were brief, in the range of 5-10 minutes; and (8) all three robberies occurred within a seven-day time period.”
Establishes the substantial similarities supporting admission of collateral crime evidence for identity purposes under the Williams Rule.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCorinthian was charged with multiple robberies of guests staying at the Budget Inn on North Federal Highway. All three victims were alone in their roo…
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 Identity Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We sua sponte consolidate these cases and affirm the conviction for robbery with a firearm in case number 4D99-3418 and for robbery with a firearm in case number 4D99-3267.
There was no error in the admission of collateral crime evidence on the issue of identity. See Evans v. State, 723 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Black v. State, 630 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).
As in Evans and Black, there are numerous similarities between the collateral crimes admitted and the crimes for which Corinthian was on trial. The similarities include: (1) all three robbery victims were staying alone at the Budget Inn at 2731 North Federal Highway; (2) all three victims’ room doors were ajar; (3) all three robberies were committed by a black male about 6’1 — 6’3, 220-240 pounds; (4) the intruder in all three robberies wielded a silver-chrome revolver; (5) all three victims were threatened and forced to lie on the floor by their bed; (6) all three victims were forced into the bathroom prior to the gunman’s getaway; (7) all three robberies were brief, in the range of 5-10 minutes; and (8) all three robberies occurred within a seven-day time period. All three victims also subsequently identified Corinthian as the man who robbed them. See Dix v. State, 485 So. 2d 38, 39 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (stating that where one victim identifies defendant, “further identification of similarities in the circumstances of the robberies themselves” is required for admissible Williams Rule evidence) (citations omitted).
The dissimilarities between the crimes were insignificant, “not of such magnitude as to overshadow the fairly well-established similarities.” Black, 630 So. 2d at 617; see Chandler v. State, 702 So. 2d 186, 194 n. 6 (Fla.1997).
Three cases cited by Corinthian—Chambers v. State, 692 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Williams v. State, 662 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); and Brown v. State, 397 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)—are distinguishable. In Chambers, the two robberies occurred over five months apart and at two different hotels, the robbers used different methods of entry into the rooms, only one victim was threatened, and different numbers of guns were used in the two crimes. See 692 So. 2d at 211—12. In Williams, while the time, date, location, and offense were “somewhat similar,” a police officer testified that the “smash-and-grab” robberies were “common” and the robber fled from the scene on bike in one robbery and on foot in the other. See 662 So. 2d at 420. In Brown, the robberies occurred at two different locations and had “only a general similarity” to each other. See 397 So. 2d at 323.
We reverse Corinthian’s sentences as both a prison releasee reoffender and an habitual felony offender and remand for resentencing under only the Prison Re-leasee Reoffender Act. See Valentino v. State, No. 4D99-0968, — So. 2d -, 2000 WL 526028 (Fla. 4th DCA May 3, 2000); Adams v. State, 750 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
Affirmed in part; reversed in part, and remanded.
FARMER, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pharaoh Nshaka v. State, 82 So. 3d 174 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…ere used at gas stations immediately thereafter; Nshaka was identified in some way by each victim; and the property belonging to the Williams Rule witnesses was found at the 59th Avenue address. The State relies specifically on Corinthian v. State, 761 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), to support its position that the collateral crime evidence was properly admitted. In Corinthian, collateral crime evidence was introduced in a case involving a robbery with a firearm. Id. at 1180. This court found that collatera…
-
Deitrick Johnson v. State, 110 So. 3d 954 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…ject the defendant’s argument that the September robbery was not sufficiently similar to the October robberies.2 The trial court acted within its discretion when it determined that this Williams rule evidence was admissible. See Corinthian v. State, 761 So. 2d 1180, 1180-81 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (finding no error in the admission of collateral crime evidence on the issue of identity because of the “numerous similarities between the collateral crimes admitted and the [robbery] for which [the defendant] was on tri…
Authorities Cited
- Oba Chandler v. State, 702 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 1997)
- Pollock v. Couffer, 750 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Black v. State, 630 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Brown v. State, 397 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Williams v. State, 662 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Chambers v. State, 692 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- DIX v. State, 485 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Evans v. State, 723 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)