MAXIMO GORDON, 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.
Maximo Gordon was convicted of fleeing and eluding police and sentenced to 56.7 months in prison. On appeal, Gordon challenged both his conviction and sentence, arguing the trial testimony about stopping near a gang-affiliated apartment complex was prejudicial and that the judge was sentencing him under the wrong statute. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence but remanded to correct a scrivener's error in the judgment.
The court held that the testimony about stopping near the apartment complex was not sufficiently prejudicial because no further connection was established between Gordon and the complex. Additionally, although the judgment contained a scrivener's error listing the wrong statute, the conviction and sentence were proper because the record clearly showed the trial court was aware of the actual conviction and sentencing under the correct statute.
[1] Testimony concerning a location nicknamed "Doom City" due to gang activity is not sufficiently prejudicial to warrant reversal when no further connection is made between…
[2] A sentencing court's mistaken belief regarding the specific statutory subsection of a crime for which a defendant was convicted does not warrant resentencing if the recor…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“We reject appellant's argument that testimony elicited by the State that he stopped his All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) near an apartment complex nicknamed "Doom City" due to gang activity in the area was sufficiently prejudicial to warrant reversal.”
Establishes that the court rejected the prejudicial testimony argument because minimal connection was established between the defendant and the complex.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGordon was convicted of fleeing and eluding a law enforcement officer after being ordered to stop. During trial, the State introduced testimony that G…
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 Prejudicial Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
Following a jury trial, Maximo Gordon was convicted of fleeing and eluding and sentenced to 56.7 months in prison. Appellant challenges both his conviction and the sentence imposed. We reject appellant’s argument that testimony elicited by the State that he stopped his All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) near an apartment complex nicknamed “Doom City” due to gang activity in the area was sufficiently prejudicial to warrant reversal. Other than the arresting officer noting that appellant had briefly stopped his ATV near the area, no further connection was made between appellant and the apartment complex.
As for the sentence, appellant insists he is entitled to be resentenced because the judge was under the mistaken belief that he was being sentenced for a *232violation of section 316.1935(2), Florida Statutes (2009) (willfully fleeing and eluding a marked law enforcement vehicle with sirens flashing), rather than a violation of section 316.1935(1) (willfully fleeing and eluding a law enforcement officer after having knowledge of an order to stop)— the crime for which the jury found the defendant guilty. This issue was not preserved for appeal. But, even if it were, it is without merit. The judgment of conviction admittedly reflects a conviction for section 316.1935(2), rather than a conviction for section 316.1935(1). It is clear from the record, however, that the trial court was well aware the defendant had been found guilty of a violation of subsection (1) and was before the court to be sentenced for a violation of section 316.1935(1). We thus affirm the conviction and sentence, but remand with directions that the trial court correct the scrivener’s error in the judgment.
Affirmed and Remanded.
WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maximo Gordon v. State, 181 So. 3d 1193 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…and reverse and remand on two of the fourteen grounds raised. Gordon was convicted of fleeing and eluding a law enforcement officer and sentenced in 2011 to 56.7 months in prison. This Court affirmed his conviction and sentence in Gordon v. State, 103 So. 3d 231 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). We affirm without further discussion the postconviction court’s summary denial of all of the grounds except for numbers two and nine. In ground two, Gordon claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for affirmatively misadvising…