Robinson v. State, 92-0716
| Decision Date | 17 February 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-0716,92-0716 |
| Parties | 18 Fla. L. Week. D510 Larry ROBINSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Allen J. DeWeese, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Edward L. Giles, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
We affirm appellant's conviction of aggravated battery and robbery with a deadly weapon. The trial court erred when it admitted, over appellant's objection, evidence of flight. See Merritt v. State, 523 So.2d 573 (Fla.1988). The record, however, contains overwhelming evidence of appellant's guilt and, therefore, we hold the admission of this evidence constituted harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986). We find no merit in appellant's contention that the trial court erred when it refused to admit evidence of an out-of-state felony to impeach a prosecution witness. See Barber v. State, 413 So.2d 482 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Johnson v. State, 449 So.2d 921 (Fla. 1st DCA), petition for review denied, 458 So.2d 274 (Fla.1984). We also reject appellant's argument that the habitual offender statute is unconstitutional. See Roberts v. State, 559 So.2d 289 (Fla. 2d DCA), cause dismissed, 564 So.2d 488 (Fla.1990); accord Johnson v. State, 564 So.2d 1174 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), review denied, 576 So.2d 288 (Fla.1991); Mitchell v. State, 575 So.2d 798 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Crawley v. State, 578 So.2d 16 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).
The trial court, however, failed to make any of the required findings under the habitual offender statute. See Sec. 775.084(1)(a), Fla.Stat. (1991). Therefore, we reverse the sentence imposed and remand this cause to the trial court for resentencing. On remand, the trial court may again sentence appellant as an habitual felony offender upon making the predicate findings as required by section 775.084(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1991). See Rolle v. State, 586 So.2d 1293 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). The absence of any findings precludes the application of State v. Rucker, 613 So.2d 460 (Fla.1993).
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State, 92-3046
...of this section has not been set aside in any post-conviction proceeding.4 Tarver acknowledged apparent conflict with Robinson v. State, 614 So.2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 620 So.2d 762 ...
-
Tarver v. State, 92-2572
...to Rule 9.030(a)(2)(A)(vi), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, we note that this decision apparently conflicts with Robinson v. State, 614 So.2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), although the omission of the facts of that case from the opinion makes it difficult to determine whether an actual conf......
- Robinson v. State
-
Herrington v. State, 92-1654
...that the court's failure to make these findings is harmless error, and resolve a conflict between two of our opinions, Robinson v. State, 614 So.2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA1993), and Carbone v. State, 615 So.2d 282, 285 (Fla. 4th Defendant, charged in 1989 with seventeen counts of burglary, petty t......