Wright v. State
| Decision Date | 29 June 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D12–1124.,4D12–1124. |
| Citation | 199 So.3d 1019 |
| Parties | Dominique WRIGHT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Ellen Griffin, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melynda L. Melear, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
Upon remand from the Supreme Court of Florida, we withdraw our prior opinion of July 23, 2014, and substitute the following in its place.
The defendant appeals his conviction and sentence for attempted first-degree murder with a firearm and aggravated battery with a firearm. He argues the trial court erred in admitting victim one's testimony from the suppression hearing and two rap videos. He also argues the court erred in excluding certain portions of victim one's deposition testimony. The State cross-appeals and argues the trial court erred in imposing his sentences as concurrent, rather than consecutive.
We find no merit in the defendant's issues on appeal and affirm his conviction. Based on Williams v. State, 186 So.3d 989 (Fla.2016), we also affirm the defendant's concurrent sentences based on section 775.087(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2011).
The defendant and co-defendant shot at two people in a car while they were parked in a driveway. The defendant and co-defendant wounded victim one in the face and the arm. Victim two was injured by flying glass from the vehicle caused by the gunshots. The State charged the defendant and co-defendant with attempted first-degree murder of victim one and aggravated battery of victim two, both with a firearm.
Prior to trial, the defense moved to suppress victim one's photo-lineup identification of the defendant, arguing it was tainted and unreliable. Victim one testified at the suppression hearing and gave a detailed account of the shooting. The court denied the motion to suppress.
Victim one was murdered four days after the hearing. The State asked the court to find victim one unavailable for trial and allow the admission of his suppression hearing testimony. Defense counsel objected and argued he had an insufficient opportunity to cross-examine victim one at the hearing. The trial court ruled the testimony admissible.
The jury found the defendant guilty as charged, specifically finding he actually possessed and discharged a firearm, causing great bodily harm. The trial court sentenced the defendant to thirty years' imprisonment with a twenty-five-year mandatory minimum for the attempted murder of victim one. The court sentenced the defendant to twenty years' imprisonment with a twenty-year mandatory minimum for the aggravated battery of victim two. Over the State's objection, the court ordered the sentences to run concurrently. Both the State and the defendant filed timely notices of appeal to this Court.
We find no error in the trial court's ruling that the defense had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the victim at the hearing on the motion to suppress. See Thompson v. State, 995 So.2d 532 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (). We also find no error in the trial court's ruling not to allow the use of certain portions of victim one's deposition as inconsistent statements. See § 90.614(2), Fla. Stat. (2011) (); see also Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237, 15 S.Ct. 337, 39 L.Ed. 409 (1895) ().
And last, we find no error in the trial court's admission of the rap videos created by the defendant as they were relevant to the commission of the crime. See Faust v. State, 95 So.3d 421 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Carrion v. State, Case No. 2D14–2151
- Baker v. State
- Johnson v. State, 4D17-935
- Presley v. State