Dix v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dix v. State

533 So. 2d 1189, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2543, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5073, 1988 WL 122441

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 18, 1988

DocketNo. 87-493

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 533 So. 2d 1189 (Dix 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

Dix v. State, 533 So. 2d 1189, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2543, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5073, 1988 WL 122441 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal from a judgment and sentence for armed robbery, the appellant raises two issues. The first is an evidentia-ry issue at the joint trial of the appellant and his codefendant. The appellant contends that it was error to allow the State to present a taped statement of the only eyewitness to the crime, the convenience store clerk. The witness had difficulty in identifying the appellant’s codefendant at trial although she had easily identified him in her taped statement made the day after the crime as well as in a subsequent photopack identification. The witness had unequivocally and confidently identified the appellant at all times before and during the trial because of a personal acquaintance with him. We find that any error in allowing the taped statement, which merely repeated the already strong out-of-court and in-court identification of the appellant by the witness, was harmless error, if error at all. We therefore affirm on this issue.

In his second issue, the appellant contends that, since he was a juvenile when he committed the offense, the court committed error when it sentenced him as an adult without providing written reasons as mandated by section 39.111(7)(d), Florida Statutes (1987). He is correct, as the state concedes. State v. Rhoden, 448 So.2d 1013 (Fla.1984). We reverse on this issue alone and remand with directions that the necessary written reasons be provided by the trial court.

The conviction is affirmed, the sentence is reversed, and the cause is remanded with instructions.

RYDER, A.C.J., and DANAHY and LEHAN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal from a judgment and sentence for armed robbery, the appellant raises two issues. The first is an evidentia-ry issue at the joint trial of the appellant and his codefendant. The appellant contends that it was error to allow the State to present a taped statement of the only eyewitness to the crime, the convenience store clerk. The witness had difficulty in identifying the appellant’s codefendant at trial although she had easily identified him in her taped statement made the day after the crime as well as in a subsequent photopack identification. The witness had unequivocally and confidently identified the appellant at all times before and during the trial because of a personal acquaintance with him. We find that any error in allowing the taped statement, which merely repeated the already strong out-of-court and in-court identification of the appellant by the witness, was harmless error, if error at all. We therefore affirm on this issue.

In his second issue, the appellant contends that, since he was a juvenile when he committed the offense, the court committed error when it sentenced him as an adult without providing written reasons as mandated by section 39.111(7)(d), Florida Statutes (1987). He is correct, as the state concedes. State v. Rhoden, 448 So.2d 1013 (Fla.1984). We reverse on this issue alone and remand with directions that the necessary written reasons be provided by the trial court.

The conviction is affirmed, the sentence is reversed, and the cause is remanded with instructions.

RYDER, A.C.J., and DANAHY and LEHAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

533 So. 2d 1189, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2543, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5073, 1988 WL 122441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dix-v-state-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack