Whittington v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Whittington v. State

511 So. 2d 749, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2093, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10036

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 28, 1987

DocketNo. 86-135

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 511 So. 2d 749 (Whittington 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

Whittington v. State, 511 So. 2d 749, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2093, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10036 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

CAMPBELL, Judge.

Appellant, Randy Whittington, raises two issues on his appeal from his judgment and sentence for the crime of sexual battery. We agree with appellant that the trial court erred in an ex post facto assessment of court costs against him under section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985). State v. Yost, 507 So.2d 1099 (Fla.1987). We, therefore, strike the assessment of costs pursuant to section 27.3455.

Appellant’s remaining issue was that the trial court erred when it denied a pretrial motion to exclude alleged inadmissible Williams,¹ Rule evidence. We agree with the trial court that the evidence as proffered at the hearing on appellant’s pretrial motion was clearly admissible under the Williams Rule. Furthermore, there was no contemporaneous objection at trial to the introduction of the testimony. Crespo v. State, 379 So.2d 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), cert. denied, 388 So.2d 1111 (Fla. 1981).

We, therefore, affirm appellant's conviction and sentence but strike the costs imposed under section 27.3455.

SCHOONOVER, J., and PACK, R. WALLACE, Associate Judge, concur.

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

CAMPBELL, Judge.

Appellant, Randy Whittington, raises two issues on his appeal from his judgment and sentence for the crime of sexual battery. We agree with appellant that the trial court erred in an ex post facto assessment of court costs against him under section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985). State v. Yost, 507 So.2d 1099 (Fla.1987). We, therefore, strike the assessment of costs pursuant to section 27.3455.

Appellant’s remaining issue was that the trial court erred when it denied a pretrial motion to exclude alleged inadmissible Williams,¹ Rule evidence. We agree with the trial court that the evidence as proffered at the hearing on appellant’s pretrial motion was clearly admissible under the Williams Rule. Furthermore, there was no contemporaneous objection at trial to the introduction of the testimony. Crespo v. State, 379 So.2d 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), cert. denied, 388 So.2d 1111 (Fla. 1981).

We, therefore, affirm appellant's conviction and sentence but strike the costs imposed under section 27.3455.

SCHOONOVER, J., and PACK, R. WALLACE, Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

511 So. 2d 749, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2093, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10036, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whittington-v-state-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack