RONNIE K. PIERSON, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• I.M. a child v. State, 917 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
  …te, 275 So. 2d 575, 577-78 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). The evidence established Appellant’s willing participation or conscious- intent for the delinquent act to be done. Appellant misplaces his reliance on “mere presence” decisions such as Shuler v. State, 801 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Accordingly, the trial court correctly denied the motion for judgment of dismissal. Restitution Order On the first day of the two-day restitution proceedings, John Merrill, who was employed in the maintenance department of the…
• Yarbrough v. State, 926 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
  …ant seeks two years of prison credit for the initial time served on the incarcerative portion of a split sentence. A defendant is entitled to credit for time he has already served on the incarcerative portion of a split sentence. Pierson v. State, 801 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); See Corpus v. State, 744 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (noting that a defendant is entitled to prison credit for time already served in prison on the charges). The trial court failed to attach any documents, such as the written…
• Wells v. State, 967 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
  …hich did) incite the co-defendant to commit the crime. See Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 3.5(a). Appellant’s mere presence at the crime scene during overlapping intervals, without more, does not justify a principals instruction. See Shuler v. State, 801 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). The error is not harmless because the verdict does not reveal whether the jury relied on the principals theory to convict Appellant, and because the instruction was likely to cause confusion in light of the State’s emphasis in c…

Authorities Cited

• Shamus D. Layman v. State, 787 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
• Robinson v. State, 786 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
• Given IN Love Adoptions, Inc. v. Ball, 786 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)