DATRON BRYANT, 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.
Datron Bryant appealed his armed robbery conviction on three grounds: the admissibility of a co-defendant's taped statement, his own taped statement, and the legality of dual sentencing enhancements. The appellate court affirmed the convictions but remanded for resentencing because sentencing him as both a habitual felony offender and prison releasee reoffender violated Florida law.
The court affirmed the admissions of both the co-defendant's statement and Bryant's statement, finding no error. However, the court remanded for resentencing because sentencing Bryant as both a habitual felony offender and a prison releasee reoffender violates the Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act.
[1] A failure to object at trial to the admission of evidence as improper impeachment or collateral crimes evidence waives the issue on appeal.
[2] A party's own exculpatory statement is admissible against that party under the hearsay exception for admissions, without a requirement that the statement be against inter…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“An exculpatory statement of a party is admissible against the party making the statement, under section 90.803(18).”
Establishes that a defendant's own statement is admissible as a party admission even if not against interest.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBryant was convicted of armed robbery. At trial, the state introduced a taped statement from a co-defendant and Bryant's own taped statement. Bryant i…
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 Party Admissions cases and more on FLexlaw
ANGELOS, CYNTHIA G., Associate Judge.
The Defendant appeals his conviction and sentence for armed robbery. The first issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in admitting, as impeachment evidence, the taped statement of a co-defendant. However, there was no objection raised at trial that the statement constituted improper impeachment evidence or improper collateral crimes evidence. We affirm as to this issue.
The second issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in admitting the Defendant’s own taped statement and we affirm as to this issue. The Defendant argues that only a statement against interest constitutes an exception to the hearsay rule. However, section 90.803(18), Florida Statutes (2001), contains no such requirement.1 See Addison v. State, 653 So. 2d 482, 484 (Fla. 5th DCA1995). An exculpatory statement of a party is admissible against the party making the statement, under section 90.803(18). Delacruz v. State, 734 So. 2d 1116, 1122 (Fia. 1st DCA 1999).
The Defendant initially said he could not have committed the crime because he was in jail, but later he stated that he was working that day at a temporary labor pool. The Defendant also argues that in his statement, he indicates that he had previously been in jail. The trial court heard the Defendant’s entire statement in a proffer and after considering the statement, together with the other evidence at trial, found that the probative value of the statement was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, and thus was admissible under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2001). The admission of this statement was relevant to an issue other than the character or propensity of the Defendant; it was relevant to determining whether the Defendant was somewhere else at the time the robbery was committed, which was an essential issue in the case.
The third issue raised on appeal was whether the trial court erred in sentencing the Defendant both as a prison releasee reoffender and as a habitual felony offender. We remand for resentencing on this issue. Sentencing a defendant both as a habitual felony offender and as a prison releasee reoffender violates the Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act. See Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla.2000); Walker v. State, 792 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
SHAHOOD and TAYLOR, JJ., concur. . Section 90.803(18) provides in relevant part, as follows:
"Admissions. — A statement that is offered against a party and is: (a) The party’s own statement in either an individual or a representative capacity.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gardner v. State, 821 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…only sold cocaine to people with whom he smokes cocaine. The State argues that Gardner’s statement was admissible as an admission against interest. We agree that the statement was admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. See Bryant v. State, 810 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (holding that an exculpatory statement of a party is admissible against the party making the statement under the hearsay exception for admissions). However, even though evidence may be admissible under an exception to the hearsay…
Authorities Cited
- Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2000)
- Delacruz v. State, 734 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Harley Roy Walker v. State, 792 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Clark v. State, 653 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Addison v. State, 653 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)