Graves v. State, No. 88-1094
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Writing for the Court | SMITH; MINER |
| Citation | 548 So.2d 801,14 Fla. L. Weekly 2096 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2096 Bernard GRAVES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 88-1094 |
| Decision Date | 06 September 1989 |
Page 801
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
First District.
Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., William A. Hatch, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
SMITH, Judge.
Appellant raises two issues in his appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence for battery on a law enforcement officer. We affirm the conviction, but vacate
Page 802
the sentence and remand for resentencing.The appellant, a prisoner at Baker Correctional Institution, was approached by Correctional Officer Cole who saw appellant put something in his mouth. The officer grabbed appellant by the throat, but appellant shoved the officer aside and fled towards another section of the prison. Officer Cole managed to grab appellant, and the two fell to the floor in a scuffle. Appellant wrestled free, but was apprehended shortly thereafter by Cole and another officer. Cole attempted to handcuff appellant who wanted to first remove his wrist watch. The officers would not permit the appellant to remove the watch and another scuffle ensued.
Appellant was charged with battery upon a law enforcement officer. At trial, Officer Cole testified as a state witness. During cross-examination, the appellant asked Cole if he knew that unnecessary and unlawful use of force against an inmate could cause an officer to be terminated or subjected to criminal charges. The officer answered affirmatively before the state objected on the ground that the question was irrelevant. The trial court sustained the objection, and Cole's response was stricken from the record. Without elaborating further, the appellant argued to the trial court that the question was relevant for impeachment purposes, but the trial court refused to change its ruling.
The jury found appellant guilty as charged; the trial court adjudicated him guilty, and the appellant was sentenced as a habitual offender to ten years. The trial court, in its written explanation, noted that appellant had previously committed an armed robbery and found that sentencing under the habitual offender statute, section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1987), was "necessary for the protection of the public ..."
In the first issue raised on appeal, appellant argues the trial court erred in granting the state's relevancy...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lamore v. State, No. 5D07-2271.
...questioning of Biel. Accordingly, none of the issues raised under this point were preserved for appeal. See, e.g., Graves v. State, 548 So.2d 801, 802 (Fla. 1st DCA Finally, Lamore argues that the State made an unfairly prejudicial and legally erroneous argument to the jury in closing that ......
-
Salgat v. State, No. 91-02552
...was unnecessary. We find that Salgat's argument on appeal was not properly preserved for appellate review. See Graves v. State, 548 So.2d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989. Therefore, we decline to address its merits and affirm the giving of the instruction based on Johnson, We do find that Salgat's a......
-
Stewart v. State, No. 92-03079
...would simply result in a remand for a new sentencing hearing at which the defendant could be properly habitualized. See Graves v. State, 548 So.2d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Johnson v. State, 576 So.2d 916 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Apparently, the defendant's counsel convinced him to dismiss the ap......
-
Monasmith v. Monasmith, No. 1D06-6409.
...that Appellant's argument regarding section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2006), was not preserved for our review. See Graves v. State, 548 So.2d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)(holding that appellate review is limited to the specific grounds raised below); Parlier v. Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc., 622 S......
-
Lamore v. State, No. 5D07-2271.
...questioning of Biel. Accordingly, none of the issues raised under this point were preserved for appeal. See, e.g., Graves v. State, 548 So.2d 801, 802 (Fla. 1st DCA Finally, Lamore argues that the State made an unfairly prejudicial and legally erroneous argument to the jury in closing that ......
-
Salgat v. State, No. 91-02552
...was unnecessary. We find that Salgat's argument on appeal was not properly preserved for appellate review. See Graves v. State, 548 So.2d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989. Therefore, we decline to address its merits and affirm the giving of the instruction based on Johnson, We do find that Salgat's a......
-
Stewart v. State, No. 92-03079
...would simply result in a remand for a new sentencing hearing at which the defendant could be properly habitualized. See Graves v. State, 548 So.2d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Johnson v. State, 576 So.2d 916 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Apparently, the defendant's counsel convinced him to dismiss the ap......
-
Monasmith v. Monasmith, No. 1D06-6409.
...that Appellant's argument regarding section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2006), was not preserved for our review. See Graves v. State, 548 So.2d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)(holding that appellate review is limited to the specific grounds raised below); Parlier v. Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc., 622 S......