DAVID PRUITT, 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 erroneous admission of a hearsay statement was harmless error and that consecutive sentences were permissible under the Criminal Punishment Code.
Appellant was convicted of multiple offenses stemming from an altercation with a victim and subsequent altercations with police. The trial court admit…
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 Excited Utterance Exception cases and more on FLexlaw
[*144] WARNER, J.
Appellant challenges his multiple convictions and sentences resulting from an altercation with a victim and then further altercations with the pursuing police. We affirm.
As to the conviction, he claims that during trial the court erroneously admitted a hearsay statement as an excited utterance. While we agree that the statement was erroneously admitted, we conclude it was harmless.
He also claims that the court erroneously imposed consecutive sentences on two of the counts, arguing the Criminal Punishment Code precludes consecutive sentences for convictions arising out of the same criminal episode. We reject this argument, as the statute clearly permits the imposition of consecutive sentences. See § 921.0024(2), Fla. Stat. (1999) (“The permissible range for sentencing shall be the lowest permissible sentence up to and including the statutory maximum, as defined in s. 775.082, for the primary offense and any additional offenses before the court for sentencing. The sentencing court may impose such sentences concurrently or consecutively.” (Emphasis added)); see also § 775.021(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (1999) (‘Whoever, in the course of one criminal transaction or episode, commits an act or acts which constitute one or more separate criminal offenses, upon conviction and adjudication of guilt, shall be sentenced separately for each criminal offense; and the sentencing judge may order the sentences to be served concurrently or consecutively.” (Emphasis added)).
We affirm as to all other issues raised.
GUNTHER and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (24 total)
-
Geanetta Moore v. State, 859 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…nce exceeds the statutory maximum), and expressly permits the trial court to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences without restriction. Hall v. State, 773 So. 2d 99, 101 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), approved, 823 So. 2d 757 (Fla.2002); Pruitt v. State, 801 So. 2d 143, 144 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Compare Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.701(d)(12) (“A sentence must be imposed for each offense. However, the total sentence cannot exceed the total guideline sentence unless a written reason is given”); Fla. R. Crim P. 3.702(d)(19) & 3…
-
Nehemie Fontagne v. State, 232 So. 3d 457 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…(Fla. 2007); Carpenter v. State, 884 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Allen v. State, 976 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Almendares v. State, 916 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Williams v. State, 907 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Pruitt v. State, 801 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). NORTHCUTT, KHOUZAM, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.…
-
Rashane D. Barber v. State, 135 So. 3d 1125 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…M. Affirmed. See Guilford v. State, 88 So. 3d 998 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); Carpenter v. State, 884 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Boyd v. State, 880 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Williams v. State, 907 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Pruitt v. State, 801 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). CRENSHAW, BLACK, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.…
Previewing 3 of 24 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence