Grace v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Grace v. State

122 So. 3d 417, 2013 WL 4727479, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 14116

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 4, 2013

DocketNo. 4D12-842

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 122 So. 3d 417 (Grace 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

Grace v. State, 122 So. 3d 417, 2013 WL 4727479, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 14116 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals his conviction for robbery with a firearm and sentence to life in prison as a prison releasee reoffender. Appellant raises two issues. First, he claims fundamental error requires reversal of his robbery conviction because the defense of self-help — a defense he did not raise below — negates the elements of the offense. We find this issue to be clearly without merit. Second, appellant claims the trial court erred in allowing the state to introduce collateral crime evidence without providing ten days’ notice under section 90.404(2)(d)l., Florida Statutes (2012). The collateral crime evidence consisted of appellant shooting the robbery victim the night before the originally scheduled trial. The trial court properly admitted this evidence as relevant evidence under section 90.402, Florida Statutes (2012), to show consciousness of guilt. See Heath v. State, 648 So.2d 660, 664 (Fla.1994); King v. State, 988 So.2d 111, 113 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). The notice requirement of section 90.404(2)(d)l. did not apply, and even if it did, any error was harmless because defense counsel had prior knowledge of the collateral crime evidence. See Fey v. State, 125 So.3d 828 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Miller v. State, 632 So.2d 243, 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).

Affirmed.

TAYLOR, LEVINE and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals his conviction for robbery with a firearm and sentence to life in prison as a prison releasee reoffender. Appellant raises two issues. First, he claims fundamental error requires reversal of his robbery conviction because the defense of self-help — a defense he did not raise below — negates the elements of the offense. We find this issue to be clearly without merit. Second, appellant claims the trial court erred in allowing the state to introduce collateral crime evidence without providing ten days’ notice under section 90.404(2)(d)l., Florida Statutes (2012). The collateral crime evidence consisted of appellant shooting the robbery victim the night before the originally scheduled trial. The trial court properly admitted this evidence as relevant evidence under section 90.402, Florida Statutes (2012), to show consciousness of guilt. See Heath v. State, 648 So.2d 660, 664 (Fla.1994); King v. State, 988 So.2d 111, 113 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). The notice requirement of section 90.404(2)(d)l. did not apply, and even if it did, any error was harmless because defense counsel had prior knowledge of the collateral crime evidence. See Fey v. State, 125 So.3d 828 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Miller v. State, 632 So.2d 243, 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).

Affirmed.

TAYLOR, LEVINE and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 So. 3d 417, 2013 WL 4727479, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 14116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grace-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack