Calixte v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Calixte v. State

770 So. 2d 215, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 13502, 2000 WL 1532818

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 18, 2000

DocketNo. 4D99-14

StatusPublished

This text of 770 So. 2d 215 (Calixte v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Calixte v. State, 770 So. 2d 215, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 13502, 2000 WL 1532818 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. As to his conviction, appellant makes two claims. First, he claims that the court erred in failing to strike the entire jury pool for failure to include any African-Americans. This error was not preserved, and there was no attempt to show that there was a systematic exclusion of African-Americans from the jury-selection process. See Gordon v. State, 704 So.2d 107, 111 (Fla.1997). See also Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 95 S.Ct. 692, 42 L.Ed.2d 690 (1975). He also challenges the admission of his confession on the grounds that he was in custody and that the state failed to show a voluntary waiver of his rights. Whether he was “in custody” or not, the evidence taken as a whole shows that Miranda¹ warnings were given, and he voluntarily waived his rights. See Padmore v. State, 743 So.2d 1203 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

With respect to his sentence, we find no error in the assessment of victim injury points on the scoresheet. See Johnson v. State, 700 So.2d 151 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Burns v. State, 584 So.2d 1073, 1076-77 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). We also affirm the departure sentence imposed based upon the ground of escalating pattern of criminal activity. The defendant did not object on this ground, appellate counsel did not move to correct the sentence pursuant to rule 9.140(d) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, and this point is not preserved for appeal. Defense counsel’s only objection was a general one that the state needed to offer proof of the prior conviction. The remaining grounds raised are insufficient to support a departure sentence. See Connelly v. State, 704 So.2d 590 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)(actions of a co-defendant could not be imputed to defendant for purposes of a finding of excessive brutality as grounds for departure); State v. Sachs, 526 So.2d 48, 51 n. 1 (Fla.1988)(upward departure cannot be based on co-defendant’s greater sentence).

WARNER, C.J., DELL and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. As to his conviction, appellant makes two claims. First, he claims that the court erred in failing to strike the entire jury pool for failure to include any African-Americans. This error was not preserved, and there was no attempt to show that there was a systematic exclusion of African-Americans from the jury-selection process. See Gordon v. State, 704 So.2d 107, 111 (Fla.1997). See also Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 95 S.Ct. 692, 42 L.Ed.2d 690 (1975). He also challenges the admission of his confession on the grounds that he was in custody and that the state failed to show a voluntary waiver of his rights. Whether he was “in custody” or not, the evidence taken as a whole shows that Miranda¹ warnings were given, and he voluntarily waived his rights. See Padmore v. State, 743 So.2d 1203 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

With respect to his sentence, we find no error in the assessment of victim injury points on the scoresheet. See Johnson v. State, 700 So.2d 151 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Burns v. State, 584 So.2d 1073, 1076-77 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). We also affirm the departure sentence imposed based upon the ground of escalating pattern of criminal activity. The defendant did not object on this ground, appellate counsel did not move to correct the sentence pursuant to rule 9.140(d) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, and this point is not preserved for appeal. Defense counsel’s only objection was a general one that the state needed to offer proof of the prior conviction. The remaining grounds raised are insufficient to support a departure sentence. See Connelly v. State, 704 So.2d 590 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)(actions of a co-defendant could not be imputed to defendant for purposes of a finding of excessive brutality as grounds for departure); State v. Sachs, 526 So.2d 48, 51 n. 1 (Fla.1988)(upward departure cannot be based on co-defendant’s greater sentence).

WARNER, C.J., DELL and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

770 So. 2d 215, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 13502, 2000 WL 1532818, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calixte-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack