Meyer v. State, 4-86-0733
| Decision Date | 26 November 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 4-86-0733,4-86-0733 |
| Citation | 498 So.2d 554,11 Fla. L. Weekly 2494 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2494 Robert Todd MEYER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Tatjana Ostapoff, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Amy Lynn Diem, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Appellant was found guilty as charged of six counts of kidnapping with a firearm, three counts of robbery with a firearm, and three counts of attempted robbery with a firearm. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent life sentences with credit for time served on the kidnapping and robbery counts, and concurrent fifteen year sentences for the attempted robberies. Mandatory three-year minimum terms were made part of each sentence.
A man, identified as appellant, entered a Pizza Hut restaurant and placed what appeared to be a short-barreled gun to the manager's side. A codefendant, also carrying what appeared to be a gun, entered the restaurant with a stocking cap over his face. The men ordered the manager, the cook, a waitress, and three friends of the cook into a walk-in cooler. The victims were then called out one at a time, searched, and their property and money taken. Three of the six victims identified appellant from a photo lineup. The codefendant testified that when appellant returned to the car after ordering a pizza, they discussed the robbery. He said they reentered the restaurant after taking a real gun and a toy gun from the car. The codefendant pled guilty and received a sentence of twelve years.
Appellant raises four points on appeal. First, he contends the trial court erred when it restricted his cross-examination of the codefendant concerning the sentence he received in exchange for his plea of guilty. Second, he claims that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal for attempted robbery. Third, he claims the trial court erred in imposing three-year mandatory minimum sentences because the state did not prove that he carried a firearm during the robberies. Fourth, he contends that the trial court's sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
We find no merit in appellant's first point on appeal. Appellant claims that the trial court impermissibly restricted his cross-examination of the codefendant when he refused to permit him to cross-examine the codefendant on his knowledge of the sentencing guidelines. We have examined the record and find the trial court did not improperly restrict appellant's cross-examination. Appellant wanted to show the codefendant's motivation for testifying. We believe that he did.
Q. (By Mr. Holmes, defense attorney). Now, Mr. D'Anna asked you whether or not the State Attorney's office or anybody in the State Attorney's office promised you anything in return for your testimony and your answer was no; is that correct?
A. [By codefendant] Basically he offered me--he just promised me that I would get immunity.
Q. Immunity for what?
A. I have some things in my case that I'd like to work out and he just offered me immunity.
Q. So you were given something in return to testify today, weren't you by the State Attorney's Office?
A. I had to testify anyways.
Q. Well, whether you had to testify or not please answer my question. You were given something in return for your testimony, weren't you?
A. I wouldn't exactly say that.
Q. I know you wouldn't. At the time that you were pleading to these charges in front of Judge Fleet do you recall whether or not you received a sentence far less than you expected or what is required under the State guidelines?
A. I think I received more than what I should have.
Q. I know that, but didn't your attorney tell you what the guidelines were?
Q. You think you received more, but didn't the Judge tell you you were getting far less?
Q. (Continuing) Didn't he tell you you were going to get far less?
A. At what time. Before I pleaded guilty or after I pleaded guilty?
Q. After you pleaded guilty didn't he tell you he was going to give you far less than he originally intended to?
A. Yes.
Q. Didn't he tell you he originally anticipated giving you 25 years? Do you remember that?
A. When Judge Fleet first walked...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Samalia
...the State. The court considered sufficient the jury's hearing that the witness received a reduced sentence in exchange for testifying. Meyer v. State may conflict Jackson v. State. In State v. Morales, 120 Ariz. 517, 587 P.2d 236 (1978), the reviewing court reversed the defendant's convicti......
-
State v. Samalia
...with the State. The court suggested that impermissibly curtailing cross-examination could never be harmless. In Meyer v. State, 498 So. 2d 554 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986), the reviewing court upheld the trial court's barring of questioning of the State's witness as to the maximum and minimum......
-
Mitchell v. State, 95-02169
...of a firearm. Bradley v. State, 413 So.2d 1248 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); T.T. v. State, 459 So.2d 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Meyer v. State, 498 So.2d 554 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Council v. State, 691 So.2d 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA In this case, numerous witnesses testified that Mr. Mitchell committed crim......
-
Junco v. State
...sufficient circumstantial evidence in the record for the jury to conclude that appellants' possessed firearms. See Meyer v. State, 498 So.2d 554, 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). Appellants also argue that the three-year minimum mandatory sentences should have been imposed to run concurrently since......