WILLIE LEE SLATER, JR., 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 appellant's issues were not preserved for appellate review or lacked merit, affirming his convictions and sentences.
The appellant was convicted of burglary, aggravated battery, false imprisonment, and aggravated assault, with minimum mandatory sentences for firearm …
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 Witness Sequestration cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, M., Senior Judge.
Appellant Willie Slater timely appeals his convictions and sentences on charges of burglary, aggravated battery, false imprisonment, and aggravated assault, and two minimum mandatory sentences of three years for using a firearm.
Slater contends that the trial court erred in permitting the victim, who was the state’s principal witness, to sit in the courtroom during the prosecutor’s opening argument. There is nothing in the record to demonstrate that either party requested sequestration of witnesses nor was any objection to the presence of the witness made prior to the prosecutor’s opening statement. The issue has not been preserved for appellate review.
The court properly denied appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal on the ground of identity. The victim testified that it was appellant who committed the charged acts, and identified him in the courtroom. In evaluating a motion for judgment of acquittal, all facts introduced into evidence are deemed admitted, and the trial court must draw every conclusion and inference therefrom in favor of the state. Lynch v. State, 293 So. 2d 44 (Fla.1974). The validity of the identification testimony was for the jury.
The supreme court, contrary to appellant’s assertion, has declared the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act to be constitutional. See State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla.2000). We find no merit in appellant’s remaining issues.
AFFIRMED.
THOMPSON, C.J., and GRIFFIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. State, 773 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…Brown v. State, 25 Fla.L. Weekly S792, - So. 2d -, 2000 WL 1472598 (Fla. Oct. 5, 2000) (the crime of attempted second degree murder exists); see State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla.2000); Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla.2000); Slater v. State, 769 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (prison releas-ee reoffender act is constitutional). . Smith is also correct that it was error for the trial court to impose consecutive terms on the sentences that were enhanced through the prison releasee reoffender act. In Ha…
-
Gaskins v. State, 987 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Slater v. State, 769 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).…
-
Rakim J. Watson v. State, 254 So. 3d 1154 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…tson was in and several people were injured. Furthermore, at least one victim testified that Watson fired shots from the vehicle. Thus, there was sufficient evidence, despite the inconsistencies, to support Watson's convictions. Cf. Slater v. State, 769 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Ultimately, it is within the jury's purview to make credibility determinations among conflicting testimony. Id. at 512 ("The validity of the [victim] identification testimony was for the jury."); see also Bradshaw v. State, 744…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lynch v. State, 293 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1974)
- State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 2000)