ANTONIO WILLIAMS
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Antonio Antwan Williams appealed his multiple convictions, challenging the trial court's denial of his pre-trial motion to exclude evidence regarding a domestic dispute with his wife. The court affirmed his convictions but remanded the case to correct a clerical error in the judgment regarding the charge designation for count three.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of the domestic dispute as it was inextricably linked to the charged offenses. The convictions are affirmed, but the case is remanded to correct the judgment to properly designate count three as burglary with an assault or battery while armed with a deadly weapon, rather than armed robbery with assault or battery.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a pre-trial motion to exclude evidence of a domestic dispute when that evidence is inextricably linked to the charg…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was charged with multiple offenses, including a count three charge involving a burglary during which he possessed a firearm and committed an …
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 Motion To Exclude Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
September 14, 2018 PER CURIAM.
Antonio Antwan Williams challenges his multiple convictions arguing the trial court erred in denying his pre-trial motion to exclude from trial any evidence regarding a dispute between Appellant and his wife. The State opposed the motion arguing the domestic dispute was inextricably linked to the charged offenses, and the trial court agreed. The issue is preserved for our review, see section 90.104(1), Florida Statutes (2017), but we find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court. See Truehill v. State, 211 So. 3d 930, 946 (Fla. 2017).
However, this cause is remanded to the trial court for correction of the judgment of conviction to reflect a conviction as to count three for burglary with an assault or battery while armed with a deadly weapon. The jury found that Appellant actually possessed a firearm and also committed an assault or battery on the victim during the course of the burglary. See § 810.02(2)(a)&(b), Fla. Stat. The judgment in the record erroneously lists this conviction as “armed robbery with assault or battery.” Both armed robbery with a firearm and burglary with an assault or battery or while armed with a dangerous weapon are first degree felonies punishable by a sentence up to life imprisonment, which Appellant received for count three. See §§ 812.13(2)(a) & 810.02(2)(a)&(b), Fla. Stat. As correction of the judgment is a ministerial act, Appellant need not be present. See Jordan v. State, 143 So. 3d 335, 339 (Fla. 2014); Taylor v. State, 185 So. 3d 1281, 1282 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016).
Appellant’s convictions are AFFIRMED, but the cause is REMANDED with instructions.
WETHERELL, BILBREY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________ Joe Hamrick and Rick A. Sichta of The Sichta Firm, LLC, Jacksonville, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jordan v. State, 143 So. 3d 335 (Fla. 2014)
- Truehill v. State, 211 So. 3d 930 (Fla. 2017)
- Zavon DeShawn Taylor v. State, 185 So. 3d 1281 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)