SAMUEL CALIXTE, 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 appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The court found that the appellant's claims regarding jury selection and the admission of his confession were either not preserved or lacked merit. The court also found no error in the sentencing, noting that some issues were not preserved for appeal.
The court held that the jury selection issue was not preserved for appeal. The court also held that the appellant's confession was voluntary and properly admitted. Finally, the court found no error in the sentencing, determining that the victim injury points were correctly assessed and that the departure sentence was validly imposed, with some grounds not being preserved.
[1] A claim of systematic exclusion of a racial group from a jury pool must be preserved by objection and an attempt to show such systematic exclusion.
[2] A confession is admissible when Miranda warnings are given and the defendant voluntarily waives their rights, regardless of whether the defendant was technically in custo…
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“First, he claims that the court erred in failing to strike the entire jury pool for failure to include any African-Americans.”
This quote introduces one of the main issues raised by the appellant on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant challenged his conviction, arguing that the jury pool was improperly selected and that his confession was involuntary. He also challenge…
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 Preservation Of Error For Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. As to his conviction, appellant makes two claims.
First, he claims that the court erred in failing to strike the entire jury pool for failure to include any African-Americans. This error was not preserved, and there was no attempt to show that there was a systematic exclusion of African-Americans from the jury-selection process. See Gordon v. State, 704 So. 2d 107, 111 (Fla.1997). See also Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 95 S.Ct. 692, 42 L.Ed.2d 690 (1975). He also challenges the admission of his confession on the grounds that he was in custody and that the state failed to show a voluntary waiver of his rights. Whether he was “in custody” or not, the evidence taken as a whole shows that Miranda1 warnings were given, and he voluntarily waived his rights. See Padmore v. State, 743 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
With respect to his sentence, we find no error in the assessment of victim injury points on the scoresheet. See Johnson v. State, 700 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Burns v. State, 584 So. 2d 1073, 1076-77 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).
We also affirm the departure sentence imposed based upon the ground of escalating pattern of criminal activity. The defendant did not object on this ground, appellate counsel did not move to correct the sentence pursuant to rule 9.140(d) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, and this point is not preserved for appeal. Defense counsel’s only objection was a general one that the state needed to offer proof of the prior conviction. The remaining grounds raised are insufficient to support a departure sentence. See Connelly v. State, 704 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)(actions of a co-defendant could not be imputed to defendant for purposes of a finding of excessive brutality as grounds for departure); State v. Sachs, 526 So. 2d 48, 51 n. 1 (Fla.1988)(upward departure cannot be based on co-defendant’s greater sentence).
WARNER, C.J., DELL and HAZOURI, JJ., concur. . Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (U.S. 1975)
- State v. Sachs, 526 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 1988)
- Gordon v. State, 704 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 1997)
- Burns v. State, 584 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Padmore v. State, 743 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Clementa Leaford Johnson v. State, 700 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Singletary v. Moore, 704 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Connelly v. State, 704 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)