ALANA SAVELL
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.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling on the alleged discovery violation, evidentiary matters, cross-examination questions, or imposing costs of prosecution under section 938.27(8), Florida Statutes.
[1] A trial court's ruling on an alleged discovery violation is reviewed for abuse of discretion under the standard established in Andres v. …
[2] A trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
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 intelligenceAlana Savell was convicted by jury of two counts of aggravated battery with a firearm. She was sentenced and appealed, raising four issues challenging…
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 Aggravated Battery With A Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
November 15, 2023 PER CURIAM.
Appellant Alana Savell appeals her convictions and sentences, after a jury trial, for two counts of aggravated battery with a firearm. She raises four issues challenging the trial court’s rulings on an alleged discovery violation, certain evidentiary rulings, and allowing certain questions by the State during cross-examination of Appellant. Finding no abuse of the trial court’s discretion, we affirm on these issues. See Smiley v. State, 295 So. 3d 156, 166 (Fla. 2020) (citing Andres v. State, 254 So. 3d 283, 293 (Fla. 2018)) (applying an “abuse of discretion standard to review a trial court’s ruling on an alleged discovery violation”); Mitchum v. State, 345 So. 3d 398, 400 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) (citing Penalver v. State, 926 So. 2d 1118, 1132 (Fla. 2006)) (“Generally, an appellate court reviews a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence for an abuse of discretion.”).
Appellant also raises two issues challenging the trial court’s imposition of costs of prosecution under section 938.27(8), Florida Statutes (2016), and denials of her motions to correct these portions of her sentence under rule 3.800(b), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The court’s imposition of these costs is affirmed. Parks v. State, 48 Fla. L. Weekly D1524, 2023 WL 4924857 (Fla. 1st DCA Aug. 2, 2023); Robinson v. State, 256 So. 3d 217 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).
AFFIRMED. OSTERHAUS, C.J., and ROWE and BILBREY, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Smiley v. State, 295 So. 3d 156 (Fla. 2020)
- Andres v. State, 254 So. 3d 283 (Fla. 2018)
- Gwyn v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2023)