Hampton v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hampton v. State

4 So. 3d 789, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 2500, 2009 WL 763497

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 25, 2009

Docket4D07-2893

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 4 So. 3d 789 (Hampton 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

Hampton v. State, 4 So. 3d 789, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 2500, 2009 WL 763497 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

TAYLOR, J.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of appellant’s prior convictions in his trial for felony battery. Under section 90.806(1), Florida Statutes, the state was allowed to intro *790 duce appellant’s prior convictions to impeach his exculpatory out-of-court statements, which were elicited by defense counsel through another witness to suggest that appellant acted in self-defense. As we cautioned in Gonzalez v. State, “a non-testifying defendant who brings out his or her own exculpatory statements through another witness, ‘runs the risk of having those statements impeached by felony convictions.’ ” 948 So.2d 877 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (quoting Kelly v. State, 857 So.2d 949, 950 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)).

We affirm appellant’s conviction. However, because the trial court did not enter a written order upon its oral finding that the previously committed appellant was competent to proceed to trial, we remand this case solely for the trial court to enter a written order finding appellant competent to proceed, pursuant to Rules 3.212(b) and (c)(7) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. See Boone v. State, 805 So.2d 1040, 1041 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Corbitt v. State, 744 So.2d 1130 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)

Affirmed, but Remanded.

STEVENSON and MAY, JJ., concur.

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

TAYLOR, J.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of appellant’s prior convictions in his trial for felony battery. Under section 90.806(1), Florida Statutes, the state was allowed to intro *790 duce appellant’s prior convictions to impeach his exculpatory out-of-court statements, which were elicited by defense counsel through another witness to suggest that appellant acted in self-defense. As we cautioned in Gonzalez v. State, “a non-testifying defendant who brings out his or her own exculpatory statements through another witness, ‘runs the risk of having those statements impeached by felony convictions.’ ” 948 So.2d 877 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (quoting Kelly v. State, 857 So.2d 949, 950 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)).

We affirm appellant’s conviction. However, because the trial court did not enter a written order upon its oral finding that the previously committed appellant was competent to proceed to trial, we remand this case solely for the trial court to enter a written order finding appellant competent to proceed, pursuant to Rules 3.212(b) and (c)(7) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. See Boone v. State, 805 So.2d 1040, 1041 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Corbitt v. State, 744 So.2d 1130 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)

Affirmed, but Remanded.

STEVENSON and MAY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 So. 3d 789, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 2500, 2009 WL 763497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hampton-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack