NEVILLE BAKER, 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.
Baker was convicted of attempted first-degree murder and kidnapping with a firearm. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, but reversed and remanded the sentencing on the attempted murder count because the trial court imposed life imprisonment, which exceeds the statutory maximum of thirty years for that offense.
The convictions are affirmed because the search warrant was supported by probable cause under the totality of the circumstances, the expert's PowerPoint exclusion was not an abuse of discretion, and the detective's testimony was proper. However, the sentence for attempted first-degree murder is reversed and remanded because attempted first-degree murder is a first-degree felony punishable by a maximum of thirty years, not life imprisonment.
[1] Under the totality of the circumstances, a magistrate has sufficient probable cause to issue a search warrant when the affidavit contains verified information in addition…
[2] A trial court does not abuse its discretion by preventing the use of an expert's presentation if the opposing party was not previously notified of its existence.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Under the totality of the circumstances, the magistrate had sufficient probable cause to issue the warrant.”
Establishes the standard for evaluating search warrants based on anonymous sources
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBaker was charged with attempted first-degree murder and kidnapping with a firearm. A search warrant was issued based partly on an anonymous source bu…
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 Anonymous Informant cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm appellant’s conviction for attempted first degree murder and kidnapping with a firearm. We find no merit in his claim that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress based upon an invalid search warrant which relied on an anonymous source. Under the totality of the circumstances, the magistrate had sufficient probable cause to issue the warrant. See Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). Here, in addition to the anonymous source, there was other verified information upon which the magistrate could rely. Appellant also claims that the court erred in preventing an expert’s use of a PowerPoint presentation, but no proffer was made of the presentation. In any event, the trial court prevented its use, because the state had never been notified of it prior to the expert testifying. The court did not abuse its discretion. Finally, no error occurred when the trial court allowed a detective to testify that a gun could fit into a bag held by appellant and observed on a surveillance video.
The trial court sentenced appellant to life in prison for attempted first degree murder and, consecutively, to life in prison for kidnapping. The state concedes that it was error to sentence appellant to life for attempted first degree murder because attempted first degree murder is a first degree felony punishable by imprisonment for thirty years. See §§ 775.082, 777.04(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (2009); see also Croft v. State, 60 So.3d 1151, 1152 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (holding that attempted first degree murder is a first degree felony, not a life felony, and that it is punishable by a maximum of thirty years’ imprisonment). We thus reverse appellant’s sentence on attempted first degree murder and remand for resentencing on that charge.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded.
WARNER, MAY and CONNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Illinois v. Gates et ux., 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983)
- Croft v. State, 60 So. 3d 1151 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)