Mattox v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mattox v. State

56 So. 3d 895, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 3511, 36 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 573

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 16, 2011

DocketNo. 1D09-6430

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 56 So. 3d 895 (Mattox 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

Mattox v. State, 56 So. 3d 895, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 3511, 36 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 573 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the judgment and sentence entered after he was found guilty by a jury of two counts of armed robbery. Appellant contends the trial court erroneously overruled his objection to the prosecution’s questions concerning the nature of the crime for which he was on probation after Appellant had already admitted on direct examination that he was on probation for a felony. The State properly concedes error, and we reverse. See Rodriguez v. State, 761 So.2d 381, 383 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (holding, “When the witness admits his or her convictions, a trial court errs by allowing the State to question the witness about the specific convictions.”). Accord, Kyle v. State, 650 So.2d 127, 127-28 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).

REVERSED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

VAN NORTWICK, THOMAS, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the judgment and sentence entered after he was found guilty by a jury of two counts of armed robbery. Appellant contends the trial court erroneously overruled his objection to the prosecution’s questions concerning the nature of the crime for which he was on probation after Appellant had already admitted on direct examination that he was on probation for a felony. The State properly concedes error, and we reverse. See Rodriguez v. State, 761 So.2d 381, 383 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (holding, “When the witness admits his or her convictions, a trial court errs by allowing the State to question the witness about the specific convictions.”). Accord, Kyle v. State, 650 So.2d 127, 127-28 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).

REVERSED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

VAN NORTWICK, THOMAS, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 So. 3d 895, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 3511, 36 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mattox-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack