MICHAEL MANN v. STATE OF FLORIDA

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: October 2, 2019
• Docket: 18-1921
• Status: Published

Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

MICHAEL MANN, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

No. 4D18-1921

[October 2, 2019]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Laura S. Johnson, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2014-CF- 012955-AXXX-MB.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and David John McPherrin, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Don M. Rogers, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Michael Mann, challenges his convictions and sentences for sexual battery and kidnapping. He raises numerous issues, all of which we find to be without merit. However, we briefly address his claim that the trial court erred in admitting evidence that Mann committed a similar kidnapping and sexual battery less than one month before the instant offenses.

The charges against Mann arose from his attack of a young woman after he lured her into his vehicle and drove her to a secluded location. Prior to trial, the state noticed its intent to introduce evidence that about three weeks before Mann committed the charged crimes, he kidnapped and raped another young woman.

The trial court held a hearing to determine whether the evidence was admissible at trial. Both victims testified regarding details of their encounters with Mann. Their testimony reflected many similarities between the offenses and some differences. The defense argued that the crimes were not sufficiently similar for the evidence to be admissible. The trial court found the evidence was admissible. Based on our review of the record, we find the trial court did not err in admitting the evidence. Even if it could be said that the crimes were not sufficiently similar to be introduced under section 90.404(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2014), the requirements for admission under section 90.404(2)(c) were satisfied. See Whisby v. State, 262 So. 3d 228, 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018).

Affirmed.

GROSS, MAY and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.