Dunn v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dunn v. State

492 So. 2d 808, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1760, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9373

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 12, 1986

DocketNo. 84-2351

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 492 So. 2d 808 (Dunn 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

Dunn v. State, 492 So. 2d 808, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1760, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9373 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of conviction from which the defendant appeals is affirmed upon a holding that the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress identification testi[809]*809mony since the identification procedure did not give rise to a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification, see Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972); Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 97 S.Ct. 2243, 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977); Grant v. State, 390 So.2d 341 (Fla. 1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 913, 101 S.Ct. 1987, 68 L.Ed.2d 303 (1981), and, further, since an identification made shortly after a crime is committed is inherently more reliable than a later identification in court, State v. Freber, 366 So.2d 426 (Fla.1978); State v. Guerra, 455 So.2d 1046 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (en banc), review denied, 461 So.2d 114 (Fla.1985).

We agree with the defendant that the trial court improperly sentenced him to two consecutive minimum mandatory terms of imprisonment.¹ Imposition of consecutive sentences is improper unless the offenses arose from separate incidents which occurred at separate times and places. See State v. Baker, 452 So.2d 927 (Fla.1984); Palmer v. State, 438 So.2d 1 (Fla.1983); Warren v. State, 450 So.2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Accordingly, the sentences are modified to run concurrently rather than consecutively.

The judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed, as modified.

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

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of conviction from which the defendant appeals is affirmed upon a holding that the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress identification testi[809]*809mony since the identification procedure did not give rise to a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification, see Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972); Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 97 S.Ct. 2243, 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977); Grant v. State, 390 So.2d 341 (Fla. 1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 913, 101 S.Ct. 1987, 68 L.Ed.2d 303 (1981), and, further, since an identification made shortly after a crime is committed is inherently more reliable than a later identification in court, State v. Freber, 366 So.2d 426 (Fla.1978); State v. Guerra, 455 So.2d 1046 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (en banc), review denied, 461 So.2d 114 (Fla.1985).

We agree with the defendant that the trial court improperly sentenced him to two consecutive minimum mandatory terms of imprisonment.¹ Imposition of consecutive sentences is improper unless the offenses arose from separate incidents which occurred at separate times and places. See State v. Baker, 452 So.2d 927 (Fla.1984); Palmer v. State, 438 So.2d 1 (Fla.1983); Warren v. State, 450 So.2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Accordingly, the sentences are modified to run concurrently rather than consecutively.

The judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed, as modified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

492 So. 2d 808, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1760, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunn-v-state-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack