Wescott v. State

71 So. 3d 949, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 16567, 2011 WL 4953055
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Wescott v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 16565
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 19, 2011·No. No. 1D10-1827·Published

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

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

71 So. 3d 949 (Wescott v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Richardson v. State
246 So. 2d 771 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1971)