Crouse v. State
| Decision Date | 21 November 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D11–2765.,4D11–2765. |
| Parties | Ulysses CROUSE Jr., Appellant, v. STATE Of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Anthony Calvello, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melynda Melear, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Appellant presents two issues on appeal: that the trial court erred in admitting the videotape of the victim's identification of appellant from a photo lineup and that the trial court erred by considering, during sentencing, his membership in a criminal gang. We find both issues to be without merit, and as such, we affirm appellant's convictions for aggravated assault with a firearm and robbery with a deadly weapon.
During trial, the victim testified that he was flagged down by appellant who asked for a ride. When appellant entered the victim's vehicle, he pulled a gun on the victim. Appellant aimed the gun at the victim and took the victim's wallet, cash, and cell phone. While exiting the vehicle, appellant stated, “I should've killed your ass.” The victim called the police and subsequently identified appellant from a photo lineup.
Over appellant's objection, the state introduced a video of the victim identifying appellant from the photo lineup. In the video, after the victim identified appellant, the officer asked the victim, “Are you sure?” The victim responded, “On everything I love.” The trial court overruled appellant's objection to the admission of the video.
Appellant testified and denied any involvement in the robbery of the victim. The jury found appellant guilty of aggravated assault with a firearm and robbery with a deadly weapon.
At the sentencing hearing, appellant admitted on direct examination that he was previously a member of a gang but claimed that he “gave that up.” On cross-examination, appellant objected to the issue of gang membership being brought up, arguing that he was not convicted of a crime related to gang activity. The trial court allowed the testimony of a detective who discussed appellant belonging to a gang connected with criminal activities.
Before pronouncing appellant's sentence, the trial court stated that although the evidence of gang membership was of some relevance, “I'm frankly not considering it that much.” Based on appellant's “background, his record, and the evidence adduced at trial,” the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment with a ten-year minimum mandatory. This appeal ensued.
As to the first issue, we find that the videotape depicting the victim identifying appellant from a photo lineup was not admitted in error. Although appellant claims that the videotape was inadmissible hearsay, a statement of identification is not hearsay if it is “made after perceiving the person” and “if the declarant testifies at the trial ... and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement.” § 90.801(2)(c), Fla. Stat. In the present case, the victim perceived appellant by identifying him from a lineup, and the victim subsequently testified at trial and was subject to cross-examination.
Further, appellant also objects to the words spoken by the victim on the videotape when the officer asked the victim, “Are you sure?” and the victim responded by saying, “On everything I love.” The fact that the video documents the victim's certainty about his identification of appellant makes it no different than when an officer testifies to any statement made by the victim as to the certainty of the victim's identification of the suspect perpetrator. See, e.g., Carter v. State, 23 So.3d 1238, 1245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) ().
As to the second issue, we find that the trial court did not err in allowing the testimony regarding appellant's gang membership. Although a “sentencing court ... must be permitted to consider any and all...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shelko v. State
...allegations of misconduct in sentencing. See McGill v. State , 148 So.3d 531, 531–32 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (citing Crouse v. State , 101 So.3d 901, 903 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) ). The trial judge here appears to have based his sentencing decision, at least in part, on what he perceived to be the "......
-
McGill v. State
...of pending or dismissed charges during sentencing results in a denial of the defendant's due process rights”); Crouse v. State, 101 So.3d 901, 903 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), (stating that while a sentencing court may consider “any and all information that reasonably might bear on the proper sente......
-
Love v. State
...that Love is associated with a gang engaged in criminal activity. See § 921.231(g), (j), Fla. Stat. (2015) ; Crouse v. State, 101 So.3d 901, 903 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Two of the detention deputies offered general testimony that Love is associated with a gang in jail, but Love does not challe......
-
MacIntosh v. State
...violated his due process rights by basing his sentence, at least in part, on uncharged or dismissed offenses. See Crouse v. State, 101 So.3d 901, 903 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (holding that while sentencing court may consider "any and all information that reasonably might bear on the proper sente......