Hill v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hill v. State

950 So. 2d 466, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 2307, 2007 WL 505303

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 20, 2007

DocketNo. 1D05-3712

StatusPublished

This text of 950 So. 2d 466 (Hill 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

Hill v. State, 950 So. 2d 466, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 2307, 2007 WL 505303 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

BROWNING, C.J.

Appellant Marcus Hill challenges his judgment and sentence, alleging that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to sever a count of resisting arrest without violence, and in denying his motion in limine to preclude testimony regarding his possession of a police scanner. The State concedes these points, and the concession is supported by the record on appeal and the law. See Rutherford v. State, 902 So.2d 211, 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). The State has not demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that these errors did not contribute to the verdict. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986). Accordingly, we REVERSE Appellant’s convictions and sentences, and REMAND for a new trial.

WOLF and KAHN, JJ., concur.

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

BROWNING, C.J.

Appellant Marcus Hill challenges his judgment and sentence, alleging that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to sever a count of resisting arrest without violence, and in denying his motion in limine to preclude testimony regarding his possession of a police scanner. The State concedes these points, and the concession is supported by the record on appeal and the law. See Rutherford v. State, 902 So.2d 211, 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). The State has not demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that these errors did not contribute to the verdict. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986). Accordingly, we REVERSE Appellant’s convictions and sentences, and REMAND for a new trial.

WOLF and KAHN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

950 So. 2d 466, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 2307, 2007 WL 505303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-state-fladistctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack