Wescott v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wescott v. State

71 So. 3d 949, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 16567, 2011 WL 4953055

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 19, 2011

DocketNo. 1D10-1827

StatusPublished

This text of 71 So. 3d 949 (Wescott 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

Wescott v. State, 71 So. 3d 949, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 16567, 2011 WL 4953055 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Jamel Ra Shaud Wescott, challenges his convictions and sentences for grand theft, burglary of a structure, and criminal mischief on multiple grounds. As properly conceded by the State, the trial court reversibly erred in failing to conduct a Richardson¹ hearing when the State failed to disclose relevant evidence until the second day of the trial, in denying Appellant’s request to recall two witnesses [950]*950to question them about this new evidence, and in questioning the jury about whether Appellant’s booking sheet, which was located in the jury room without being admitted into evidence, influenced its verdict in this case. Accordingly, we reverse Appellant’s convictions and remand for a new trial. We affirm all other issues raised on appeal without further discussion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

DAVIS, PADOVANO, and ROWE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Jamel Ra Shaud Wescott, challenges his convictions and sentences for grand theft, burglary of a structure, and criminal mischief on multiple grounds. As properly conceded by the State, the trial court reversibly erred in failing to conduct a Richardson¹ hearing when the State failed to disclose relevant evidence until the second day of the trial, in denying Appellant’s request to recall two witnesses [950]*950to question them about this new evidence, and in questioning the jury about whether Appellant’s booking sheet, which was located in the jury room without being admitted into evidence, influenced its verdict in this case. Accordingly, we reverse Appellant’s convictions and remand for a new trial. We affirm all other issues raised on appeal without further discussion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

DAVIS, PADOVANO, and ROWE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 So. 3d 949, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 16567, 2011 WL 4953055, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wescott-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack