Carter v. State, 88-446
| Decision Date | 30 May 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-446,88-446 |
| Citation | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1319,550 So.2d 1130 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1319 Charles Edward CARTER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Robert Kalter, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Richard L. Polin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before NESBITT, JORGENSON and LEVY, JJ.
Charles Edward Carter appeals from judgments of conviction and sentences for aggravated battery, robbery with a deadly weapon, kidnapping with a weapon, attempted first-degree murder, and armed burglary of an occupied vehicle, with an assault and battery. We affirm.
At voir dire, the state exercised peremptory challenges to excuse two black veniremembers. Upon defendant's objection to the challenges, the trial court conducted an inquiry pursuant to State v. Neil, 457 So.2d 481 (Fla.1984). The trial court found that the potential jurors had been wrongfully excluded on the basis of race, sustained defendant's objection to their dismissal, and dismissed the entire venire panel.
On appeal, Carter contends that the trial court erred in dismissing the entire venire panel and that, instead, the trial court should have allowed the jurors already selected, plus the two illegally challenged jurors, to hear the case. We disagree. In Neil the Florida supreme court unequivocally stated: "If the party has actually been challenging prospective jurors solely on the basis of race, then the court should dismiss that jury pool and start voir dire over with a new pool." 457 So.2d at 487. Therefore, the trial court had no choice but to dismiss the entire venire panel and begin the jury selection process anew. 1
Carter also appeals from the departure sentences imposed by the trial court. We affirm the sentences imposed. In its written reasons for departing upwards from the sentencing guidelines, the trial court stated that the vulnerability of the victim supported enhancement of the sentence. The particular vulnerability of a victim is a valid reason for departing from the sentencing guidelines. Orange v. State, 535 So.2d 691 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Here, the record supports the trial court's finding that Carter's victim was particularly vulnerable to the series of vicious attacks she suffered. Carter's victim was significantly smaller than her assailant and was, thus, especially vulnerable when the crime commenced. Moreover, when the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. State
...People v. Smith, 21 Cal.App.4th 342, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 850 (1993)); Florida (see State v. Neil, 457 So.2d 481 (Fla.1984); Carter v. State, 550 So.2d 1130 (1989), rev'd on other grounds, 590 So.2d 1096 (1991)); 2 Indiana (see Minniefield v. State, 539 N.E.2d 464, 466 (Ind.1989) (implying that r......
-
Lozano v. State
...law of Florida. State v. Neil, 457 So.2d 481 (Fla.1984); Mazaheritehrani v. Brooks, 573 So.2d 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Carter v. State, 550 So.2d 1130 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 553 So.2d 1164 (Fla.1989).7 We note, however, that the State opened the door to the otherwise excludable evidenc......
-
Wright v. State
...basis of race "then the court should dismiss that jury pool and start voir dire over with a new pool." Id. at 487. See Carter v. State, 550 So.2d 1130 (Fla. 3d DCA) (trial court, bound by Neil, could not cure a discriminatory challenge by seating a stricken juror), review denied, 553 So.2d ......
-
Jones v. State, 95-389
...4. The particular vulnerability of a victim can be a valid reason for departing from the sentencing guidelines. Carter v. State, 550 So.2d 1130 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Orange v. State, 535 So.2d 691 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Berry v. State, 511 So.2d 1075 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Particularly, when as in......