LAWRENCE JEFFERSON, 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.
Lawrence Jefferson challenged his aggravated assault with a firearm conviction and dual sentencing as a HVFO and PRR. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding that Jefferson was not denied the right to recall a witness and that the gun's brandishment was sufficient to constitute aggravated assault, but remanded for reconsideration of the dual sentences under Grant v. State.
The conviction was affirmed because Jefferson was not denied the right to recall the officer and had the option to subpoena him; any testimony would not have actually impeached the victim's account; and brandishing the weapon in the victim's presence was sufficient to constitute aggravated assault with a firearm. The dual sentences were improper under Grant v. State, and the case was remanded for reconsideration of sentencing.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion by informing counsel that it is counsel's responsibility to secure the presence of a witness for recall.
[2] A defendant's decision not to pursue a subpoena for a witness, due to concerns about the time it would take, does not constitute a denial of the right to recall that witn…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“appellant was never denied the right to recall the officer. Instead, the court told counsel that it was his responsibility to get the officer there. Appellant simply decided that it would take too long to get a subpoena served on the officer.”
Establishes that Jefferson was not prevented from recalling the witness but chose not to pursue subpoena due to time constraints.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLawrence Jefferson was convicted of aggravated assault with a firearm and probation revocation. He sought to recall an investigating officer to impeac…
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 Habitual Violent Felony Offender (Hvfo) cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1090] WARNER, C.J.
The appellant, Lawrence Jefferson, challenges his conviction and sentence for aggravated assault with a firearm and revocation of probation. As to his conviction, he argues that the trial court abused its discretion in preventing him from recalling a state witness, the investigating officer, whose testimony would have impeached the victim’s testimony that appellant pointed the gun at her. We affirm because appellant was never denied the right to recall the officer. Instead, the court told counsel that it was his responsibility to get the officer there. Appellant simply decided that it would take too long to get a subpoena served on the officer. Further, the testimony from the witness would not have impeached the victim’s testimony. Finally, whether or not appellant actually pointed a gun at the victim, he brandished the weapon in her presence, which we conclude is sufficient under the facts of this case to constitute an aggravated assault with a firearm.
Appellant also challenges his dual sentence as a habitual violent felony offender (“HVFO”) and a prison releasee reoffender (“PRR”) as a violation of double jeopardy. However, in Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655, 658 (Fla.2000), the supreme court held that such dual sentencing is usually not a violation of double jeopardy principles. Nevertheless, the court held that equal concurrent sentences both as a PRR and a HVFO are not authorized by the PRR act. See id. at 659. We therefore remand to the trial court to reconsider the sentences imposed in light of Grant
Affirm conviction and remand for reconsideration of sentence.
HAZOURI, J., and BARKDULL, THOMAS H., Ill, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D.L.D., Jr. v. State, 815 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…She might have testified about this kind of subjective emotional upset had defense counsel not objected to the state’s question about whether she was “scared,” which was sustained. In any event, we agree with our sister court in McMath v. Biemacki, 776 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), that in determining whether an incident or series of incidents creates substantial emotional distress for a victim, the distress should be judged not on a subjective standard (was the victim in tears and terrified), but on an ob…
Authorities Cited
- Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2000)