Ashcraft v. State, 84-810

Citation10 Fla. L. Weekly 826,465 So.2d 1374
Decision Date27 March 1985
Docket NumberNo. 84-810,84-810
Parties10 Fla. L. Weekly 826 Ronald Craig ASHCRAFT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and Douglas S. Connor, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corces, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

LEHAN, Judge.

Defendant appeals from convictions for armed burglary, sexual battery, burglary of a conveyance, and second degree grand theft. He raises two points on appeal. We affirm.

As to his first point, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying him his right to self-representation. We do not agree. While the trial judge's attention to detail in conducting the type of inquiry called for by Williams v. State, 427 So.2d 768 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), was not as great as it could have been, we cannot say that the judge did not have sufficient basis to deny defendant's request to represent himself. "Self representation is not an absolute right and need not be allowed when it would jeopardize a fair trial on the issues." Williams, 427 So.2d at 770-71. The judge determined on the basis of the nature of the evidence to be adduced at trial, his inquiries to defendant, and his observations of defendant at prior hearings that defendant would not get a "decent" trial if he represented himself. We equate "decent" with fair, especially in view of the trial court's contemplation of the technical aspects to be involved at the trial, such as expert testimony involving fingerprints, serology, and hair comparisons.

As his second point, defendant contends that the trial court erred in permitting the prosecutor to impeach defendant by inquiring into the nature of his prior convictions. We do not agree.

Defendant erroneously testified to a lesser number of prior convictions than were shown by his record. The prosecutor was not thereby entitled to elicit details of the prior crimes.

If the witness denies ever having been convicted, or misstates the number of previous convictions, counsel may impeach the witness by producing a record of past convictions. Even if a witness denies a prior conviction, the specific offense is identified only incidentally when the record of the conviction is entered into evidence.

Fulton v. State, 335 So.2d 280, 284 (Fla.1976). Nonetheless, the state, citing McCrae v. State, 395 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1980), cert. denied, 454...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Robertson v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • March 28, 2001
    ...any case.2See Ivey v. State, 132 Fla. 36, 180 So. 368 (Fla.1938); C.M. v. State, 698 So.2d 1306 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Ashcraft v. State, 465 So.2d 1374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). The defendant testified he never threatened anyone with a gun. Clearly this statement was intended to buttress his theor......
  • Robertson v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • April 12, 2000
    ...of its section 90.608(5) argument, the dissent relies on C.M. v. State, 698 So.2d 1306 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), and Ashcraft v. State, 465 So.2d 1374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). These cases are clearly distinguishable from the present case. In C.M., the arresting officer testified that after she spoke ......
  • Mosley v. State, 98-1502.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • August 25, 1999
    ...to rebuttal evidence that the defendant had hit his first wife and a former girlfriend. Allred, 642 So.2d at 651. In Ashcraft v. State, 465 So.2d 1374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), the defendant opened the door to evidence about a prior rape conviction by testifying that he "had never hurt anyone." I......
  • Lyons v. State, 19901
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nevada
    • July 18, 1990
    ...Baker, supra; Block v. State, 95 Nev. 933, 604 P.2d 338 (1979); Schnepp v. State, 92 Nev. 557, 554 P.2d 1122 (1976); Ashcraft v. Florida, 465 So.2d 1374 (Fla.App.1985). Lyons argues that the district court erred in denying his day-of-trial request for a postponement to hire another attorney......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT