Middleton v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Middleton v. State

760 So. 2d 251, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 6542, 2000 WL 694153

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 31, 2000

DocketNo. 3D99-107

StatusPublished

This text of 760 So. 2d 251 (Middleton 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

Middleton v. State, 760 So. 2d 251, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 6542, 2000 WL 694153 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Mark Middleton appeals his convictions for armed robbery, armed kidnapping, sexual battery, and two firearm-related charges. We think the trial court’s rulings regarding the scope of the hearsay exception for statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment, see § 90.803(4), Fla. Stat. (1997), were within discretion. If there was any error — and we see none — it was entirely harmless given that the victim testified to the same information.

The consecutive mandatory minimum firearm sentences were permissible given that defendant-appellant Middleton first committed an armed robbery on the victim at a bus stop, and then compelled the victim to walk with him to a more secluded location, where he committed two sexual batteries at gunpoint. See Murray v. State, 491 So.2d 1120 (Fla.1986).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Mark Middleton appeals his convictions for armed robbery, armed kidnapping, sexual battery, and two firearm-related charges. We think the trial court’s rulings regarding the scope of the hearsay exception for statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment, see § 90.803(4), Fla. Stat. (1997), were within discretion. If there was any error — and we see none — it was entirely harmless given that the victim testified to the same information.

The consecutive mandatory minimum firearm sentences were permissible given that defendant-appellant Middleton first committed an armed robbery on the victim at a bus stop, and then compelled the victim to walk with him to a more secluded location, where he committed two sexual batteries at gunpoint. See Murray v. State, 491 So.2d 1120 (Fla.1986).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

760 So. 2d 251, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 6542, 2000 WL 694153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/middleton-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack