Ellis v. State, 87-2701
| Decision Date | 14 December 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-2701,87-2701 |
| Citation | 534 So.2d 1234,13 Fla. L. Weekly 2742 |
| Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2742 Robert David ELLIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and Allyn Giambalvo, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William I. Munsey, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Defendant, Robert David Ellis, appeals his convictions and sentence for sexual battery and lewd and lacivious conduct claiming that the trial court failed to sever an improper count from the information. We agree.
Counts I, II, and III of the information charged defendant with committing a sexual battery by digital penetration upon T.M. (age 9) and A.V.Y. (age 7) between October 1, 1986, and December 25, 1986. Count IV of the information charged defendant with committing a lewd and lascivious act with K.H. (age 14) during that same period. Defendant admitted having intercourse with K.H.
Defendant filed a motion to sever count IV from the information, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.152, alleging that severance was necessary to achieve a fair determination of his guilt or innocence of each charge. Defendant also claimed that severance was necessary since count IV involved different victims and occurred at a different time. The trial court denied defendant's motion.
We think severance was necessary to promote a fair determination of defendant's guilt or innocence. The record reveals that the state argued in closing that because defendant admitted that he had committed one offense, he must also have committed the others. We think use of the evidence in this manner was highly prejudicial towards defendant and is prohibited by Rule 3.152. Therefore, we find that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied defendant's motion to sever count IV.
We further note that count IV was improperly joined with the other counts in the information. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.151 requires that multiple offenses be related in order to permit joinder or consolidation of the offenses. Consolidation is inappropriate when the acts are "connected" only by similar circumstances and the accused's alleged guilt in both instances. State v. Williams, 453 So.2d 824 (Fla.1984); Paul v. State, 385 So.2d 1371 (Fla.1980) (adopting Paul v. State, 365 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (Smith, J.,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roark v. State, 92-380
...separate and different factual event than that charged in each other information." 548 So.2d at 809. Similarly, in Ellis v. State, 534 So.2d 1234 (Fla. 2d DCA1988), the court concluded the acts committed against two of the victims were not connected in an episodic sense to the act allegedly......
-
Hammond v. State, 94-02262
...the alleged offenses. The charges should have been severed. See Wallis v. State, 548 So.2d 808 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Ellis v. State, 534 So.2d 1234 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Finally, because retrial will be necessary in this case, we need not address the sentencing issues raised by the appellant. ......
-
Bierer v. State
...the appellant that his argument for severance is supported by Wallis v. State, 548 So.2d 808 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), and Ellis v. State, 534 So.2d 1234 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). 2 It was held in those cases that the offenses were not so connected in an episodic sense to justify consolidation. See Fl......
-
Chapman v. State, 92-03976
...acts occurring over a seven-month period while the handling and fondling charge involved a one-time occurrence. As in Ellis v. State, 534 So.2d 1234 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), the trial court here erred by denying the motion for severance when the charges were so dissimilar. The trial court's reas......