Jenkinson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Jenkinson v. State

764 So. 2d 925, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 10386, 2000 WL 1154060

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 16, 2000

DocketNo. 4D99-2599

StatusPublished

This text of 764 So. 2d 925 (Jenkinson 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

Jenkinson v. State, 764 So. 2d 925, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 10386, 2000 WL 1154060 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Craig Jenkinson timely appeals after a jury convicted him of two counts of lewd assault. The court declared him to be a sexual predator and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment. He argues that the court erred in allowing collateral evidence of “peeking” incidents because it was introduced solely to prove his propensity to commit the crime charged. We disagree and hold that the court properly exercised its discretion in admitting the evidence. See Saffor v. State, 660 So.2d 668 (Fla.1995). We also affirm as unpersuasive his argument that the trial court erred in prohibiting him from introducing additional evidence of the victim’s motive and bias. However, we reverse the order declaring him to be a sexual predator because he does not have the requisite enumerated prior convictions according to the statute. See § 775.21 Fla. Stat. (1999). Accordingly, we remand this case in order to allow the trial court to correct the order.

[926]*926POLEN, SHAHOOD, JJ., and GARDINER, ANA I., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Craig Jenkinson timely appeals after a jury convicted him of two counts of lewd assault. The court declared him to be a sexual predator and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment. He argues that the court erred in allowing collateral evidence of “peeking” incidents because it was introduced solely to prove his propensity to commit the crime charged. We disagree and hold that the court properly exercised its discretion in admitting the evidence. See Saffor v. State, 660 So.2d 668 (Fla.1995). We also affirm as unpersuasive his argument that the trial court erred in prohibiting him from introducing additional evidence of the victim’s motive and bias. However, we reverse the order declaring him to be a sexual predator because he does not have the requisite enumerated prior convictions according to the statute. See § 775.21 Fla. Stat. (1999). Accordingly, we remand this case in order to allow the trial court to correct the order.

[926]*926POLEN, SHAHOOD, JJ., and GARDINER, ANA I., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

764 So. 2d 925, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 10386, 2000 WL 1154060, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jenkinson-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack