Ortiz v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ortiz v. State

162 So. 3d 168, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 1207, 2015 WL 403618

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 30, 2015

Docket2D13-3645

StatusPublished

This text of 162 So. 3d 168 (Ortiz 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

Ortiz v. State, 162 So. 3d 168, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 1207, 2015 WL 403618 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

MORRIS, Judge.

Robert Anthony Ortiz appeals his judgments and sentences for robbery (with discharge of a firearm) and fleeing or eluding a law enforcement officer. We agree with Ortiz that the trial court erred by allowing the State to inquire about the nature of Ortiz’s prior convictions during cross-examination. See Rodriguez v. State, 761 So.2d 381, 383 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Britton v. State, 604 So.2d 288, 291 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). However, Ortiz failed to preserve this issue for appeal, and we decline to find fundamental error. Instead, based on our review of all the evidence, we conclude that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction and, therefore, the error was harmless. See Riechmann v. State, 581 So.2d 133, 140 (Fla.1991) (holding that improper impeachment by prior convictions was harmless given the other evidence in the case); Houston v. State, 337 So.2d 852, 853 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) (same).

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.

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

MORRIS, Judge.

Robert Anthony Ortiz appeals his judgments and sentences for robbery (with discharge of a firearm) and fleeing or eluding a law enforcement officer. We agree with Ortiz that the trial court erred by allowing the State to inquire about the nature of Ortiz’s prior convictions during cross-examination. See Rodriguez v. State, 761 So.2d 381, 383 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Britton v. State, 604 So.2d 288, 291 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). However, Ortiz failed to preserve this issue for appeal, and we decline to find fundamental error. Instead, based on our review of all the evidence, we conclude that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction and, therefore, the error was harmless. See Riechmann v. State, 581 So.2d 133, 140 (Fla.1991) (holding that improper impeachment by prior convictions was harmless given the other evidence in the case); Houston v. State, 337 So.2d 852, 853 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) (same).

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 So. 3d 168, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 1207, 2015 WL 403618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ortiz-v-state-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack