CALVIN BROWN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 2006-11-01
No. 4D05-2392
STEVENSON, C.J., and TAYLOR, J., concur.
940 So. 2d 609 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2006) Positive Treatment
Cited by 11 cases

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.

Synopsis

Calvin Brown appealed his civil commitment as a sexually violent predator under Florida's Jimmy Ryce Act, arguing the state failed to present evidence of a prior sexually violent offense conviction. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed his commitment, holding that Brown waived his directed verdict challenge by failing to renew it after all evidence was presented and that his pretrial stipulation to his prior convictions was sufficient.


Holding

Brown waived his directed verdict challenge by failing to renew the motion at the close of all evidence and failing to file a post-trial motion, as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.480(b). Even if preserved, the pretrial stipulation to prior convictions, combined with jury awareness of those convictions, satisfied the state's burden of proof on that element.


Headnotes

[1] A motion for directed verdict must be renewed at the close of all evidence to preserve the issue for appellate review.

[2] A party who timely moves for a directed verdict must also serve a post-trial motion to set aside the verdict and enter judgment in accordance with the motion for directed…

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

Key Quotes

“When a motion for a directed verdict made at the close of all of the evidence is denied or for any reason is not granted, the court is deemed to have submitted the action to the jury subject to a later determination of the legal questions raised by the motion.”

Establishes the procedural requirement that a directed verdict motion must be renewed at the close of all evidence to preserve the issue for appeal.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Calvin Brown was the subject of a civil commitment proceeding under chapter 394, part V, Florida Statutes (the Jimmy Ryce Act). Brown moved for a dire…

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.


Opinion of the Court
WARNER, J.

WARNER, J.

We affirm the final judgment adjudicating the appellant, Calvin Brown, a sexually violent predator and committing him to the custody of the Department of Children and Families pursuant to chapter 394, part V, Florida Statutes. Brown claims that his motion for directed verdict should have been granted because the state failed to offer evidence that he had ever been convicted of a “sexually violent offense,” an element of proof under the statute. However, Brown failed to renew his motion at the close of all of the evidence, a requirement to preserve the issue on appeal.

In a civil commitment proceeding filed under the Jimmy Ryce Act, the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure generally apply. See § 394.9155(1), Fla. Stat. (2005) (“The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure apply unless otherwise specified in this part.”). Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.480 outlines the procedures governing a motion for directed verdict. Rule 1.480(b) provides, in pertinent part:

When a motion for a directed verdict made at the close of all of the evidence is denied or for any reason is not granted, the court is deemed to have submitted the action to the jury subject to a later determination of the legal questions raised by the motion. Within 10 days after the return of a verdict, a party who has timely moved for a directed verdict may serve a motion to set aside the verdict and any judgment entered thereon and to enter judgment in accordance with the motion for a directed verdict.

(Emphasis added).

Because the rule treats the denial of a motion for directed verdict at the close of the evidence as a reservation of ruling, in order to preserve the point for appellate review it is necessary to make an appropriate post-trial motion. See Indus. Affiliates, Ltd. v. Testa, 770 So. 2d 202, 204 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); see also Williams v. Sch. Bd. of Palm Beach County, 770 So. 2d 706, 707 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (holding that the trial court erred in granting the School Board’s post-trial motion for directed verdict because “[although the School Board timely moved for a directed verdict during trial, it did not serve its motion for directed verdict until the eleventh day after the verdict”).

In this case, Brown moved for a directed verdict at the close of the state’s case-in-chief, but Brown did not renew the motion for directed verdict at the close of all the evidence. Further, Brown did not make any post-trial motion for judgment in accordance with the motion for directed verdict. Accordingly, this issue has not been preserved for appellate review.

Even if the issue had been preserved, Brown joined in a pre-trial stipulation as to his prior convictions and their validity. Despite some equivocal language from the prosecutor during a motion in limine hearing, it is apparent that the state accepted Brown’s stipulation in which he admitted his prior convictions. Moreover, during opening statements, both the state and the defense mentioned to the jury that Brown had been convicted of offenses that qualify as sexually violent offenses under the Jimmy Ryce Act. Thus, it is clear that during trial the state relied upon the pretrial stipulation. In United States v. Harrison, 204 F. 3d 236, 243 (D.C.Cir.2000), the court held that a defendant’s stipulation waives his or her right to contest the government’s failure to introduce any evidence on those stipulations, including a failure to read those stipulations to the jury. See also United States v. Hardin, 139 F. 3d 813, 816 (11th Cir.1998); United States v. Branch, 46 F. 3d 440, 442 (5th Cir.1995). The Harrison court explained: “The stipulations were filed with the district court, the jury was made aware of them, and the jury found all of the elements to exist.” 204 F. 3d at 243. Similarly, at bar, the pre-trial stipulation was filed with the trial court, the jury was made aware of Brown’s convictions, and the jury found Brown to be a sexually violent predator within the purview of the Jimmy Ryce Act.

Affirmed.

STEVENSON, C.J., and TAYLOR, J., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Alton Hartzog v. State, 133 So. 3d 570 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
    …nt motion for directed verdict. .The criminal rules of procedure do not apply in cases like the present one. "The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure apply unless otherwise specified in this part.” § 394.9155(1), Fla. Stat. (2012). See Brown v. State, 940 So. 2d 609, 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) ("In a civil commitment proceeding filed under the Jimmy Ryce Act, the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure generally apply.”). See also Roosevelt v. State, 42 So. 3d 293, 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); Mwray v. State, 27 So. 3d 781, 7…
  • Burns v. Jerilyn Bockorick, 220 So. 3d 438 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)
    …her. While Burns agreed to an order prohibiting him from contacting Bock-orick, there is no indication that he agreed to having engaged in stalking, or was even aware the final judgment would contain a finding of stalking. See, e.g., Brown v. State, 940 So. 2d 609, 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (explaining that where a defendant expressly stipulates to evidence, he waives his “right to contest the ... failure to introduce any evidence on those stipulations”). Because there was neither evidence of, nor a stipulatio…
  • Cent. Square Tarragon LLC v. Great Divide Ins. Co., 82 So. 3d 911 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
    …ng effect of a stipulation on the parties.2 A party’s “stipulation waives his or her right to contest the [] failure to introduce any evidence on those stipulations, including a failure to read those stipulations to the [*915] jury.” Brown v. State, 940 So. 2d 609, 610-11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). Our system of justice depends upon lawyers as officers of the court. Here, insurance counsel abandoned that role and engaged in gamesmanship by failing to honor the stipulation. That conduct deprived the purchaser of a…

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw