Sheffield v. State, 90-2452
| Decision Date | 27 August 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-2452,90-2452 |
| Citation | 585 So.2d 396 |
| Parties | Ivory SHEFFIELD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. 585 So.2d 396, 16 Fla. L. Week. D2263 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Nancy Daniels, Public Defender, Glen P. Gifford, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Suzanne G. Printy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
Appellant, Ivory Sheffield, challenges his conviction and habitual offender sentence after a jury found him guilty of robbery with a firearm. As grounds for reversing his conviction, appellant complains that he was improperly cross-examined as to the specific details of his prior felony offenses. Concerning his enhanced sentence as an habitual felony offender, appellant argues that the statute does not permit enhancement where the sentenced offense is a first-degree felony punishable by a term of years not exceeding life imprisonment. We affirm.
Although prior felonies or crimes involving dishonesty may be used to attack the credibility of a testifying criminal defendant, the prosecutor is not permitted to delve into the specifics of the prior convictions. Jackson v. State, 498 So.2d 906, 909 (Fla.1986); Fulton v. State, 335 So.2d 280, 284 (Fla.1976). In the instant case, the prosecutor improperly revealed the nature of the prior offenses, but appellant failed to preserve the error through a specific and timely objection. Because such an objection is necessary to preserve the error asserted, we must affirm appellant's conviction. Thomas v. State, 424 So.2d 193 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).
Neither can we accept appellant's argument that section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1989), does not permit enhancement of his sentence for a first-degree felony punishable by life. In Burdick v. State, 584 So.2d 1035 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), we rejected this argument and held that the habitual offender statute authorizes enhancement of first-degree felonies punishable by life. As we did in Burdick, we certify the following question as one of great public importance: 1
1 Because Sheffield was not given a life sentence, we have modified the question to omit reference to life imprisonment.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hayes v. State, 91-2067
...594 So.2d 267 (Fla.1992); Harris v. State, 586 So.2d 1350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), approved, 594 So.2d 272 (Fla.1992); Sheffield v. State, 585 So.2d 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), approved, 595 So.2d 37 (Fla.1992); Lock v. State, 582 So.2d 819 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), approved, 595 So.2d 50 (Fla.1992); Ne......
-
McFadden v. State, 98-91.
...is plain, and independent, error to introduce these (particularly damaging) "specifics of the prior convictions." Sheffield v. State, 585 So.2d 396, 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), approved, 595 So.2d 37 (Fla.1992); see also Porter v. State, 593 So.2d 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 3. Finally, both of these mi......
-
Pridgeon v. State, 90-2083
...451 So.2d 458 (Fla.1984); Steinhorst v. State, 412 So.2d 332 (Fla.1982); Castor v. State, 365 So.2d 701 (Fla.1978); Sheffield v. State, 585 So.2d 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). In the present case, it is unclear whether appellant was objecting to the introduction of the documents into evidence, o......
-
West v. State, 97-1065
...Judge. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Esty v. State, 642 So.2d 1074 (Fla.1994); State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986); Sheffield v. State, 585 So.2d 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). ...