Sumpter v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sumpter v. State

838 So. 2d 615, 2002 WL 31995569

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 19, 2003

DocketNo. 4D01-5019

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 838 So. 2d 615 (Sumpter 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

Sumpter v. State, 838 So. 2d 615, 2002 WL 31995569 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Andrew Sumpter (Sumpter) was charged with two counts of robbery with a deadly weapon. After a jury trial, he was found guilty on both counts. As the basis for his appeal, he contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial based on testimony that he alleges inferred that he confessed in another case.

The statement made during trial was not an improper implication of a collateral crime and therefore the trial court did not err in denying Sumpter’s motion for mistrial. We affirm the conviction.

However, we remand for re-sentencing. The scoresheet utilized by the trial court to sentence Sumpter erroneously contained a robbery which was committed three days after the offense for which he was being sentenced. It was error to include this offense under the “prior record” section of the scoresheet. See Pollis v. State, 581 So.2d 991 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). The only offenses that may be included under “prior record” are those committed by the offender prior to the commission of the primary offense. We remand for re-sentencing under a corrected scoresheet.

POLEN, C.J., KLEIN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Andrew Sumpter (Sumpter) was charged with two counts of robbery with a deadly weapon. After a jury trial, he was found guilty on both counts. As the basis for his appeal, he contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial based on testimony that he alleges inferred that he confessed in another case.

The statement made during trial was not an improper implication of a collateral crime and therefore the trial court did not err in denying Sumpter’s motion for mistrial. We affirm the conviction.

However, we remand for re-sentencing. The scoresheet utilized by the trial court to sentence Sumpter erroneously contained a robbery which was committed three days after the offense for which he was being sentenced. It was error to include this offense under the “prior record” section of the scoresheet. See Pollis v. State, 581 So.2d 991 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). The only offenses that may be included under “prior record” are those committed by the offender prior to the commission of the primary offense. We remand for re-sentencing under a corrected scoresheet.

POLEN, C.J., KLEIN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

838 So. 2d 615, 2002 WL 31995569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sumpter-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack