ALFREDA HOWARD, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appellate court affirmed conviction for attempted second-degree murder with a firearm and 20-year sentence with 3-year mandatory minimum, rejecting challenges to confession admissibility, firearm enhancement, and victim impact statements.
A trial court properly admitted a voluntary confession, imposed firearm enhancement and mandatory minimum sentencing, and considered victim impact statements without abuse of discretion.
[1] Trial courts have broad discretion to consider statements by relatives of the victim at sentencing hearings without abuse of discretion.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was convicted by jury of attempted second-degree murder with a firearm and sentenced to 20 years with a mandatory 3-year minimum.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Firearm Enhancement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of her conviction and sentence to 20 years in the state penitentiary with a minimum mandatory 3 year sentence entered by the trial court after a jury verdict found her guilty of attempted second degree murder with a firearm.
The appellant urges 4 points for reversal, first, error in denying the motion to suppress a written confession, second, error in enhancing the sentence because of the use of a firearm, thirdly, doubly enhancing it by the imposition of a 3 year minimum mandatory, and lastly, permitting the relatives of the deceased to make comments at the sentencing hearing. We find no error and affirm.
As to the voluntariness of the confession see Paramore v. State, 229 So. 2d 855 (Fla.1969); Smith v. State, 422 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); State v. Williams, 358 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). As to the enhancement to a first degree felony see Miller v. State, 438 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Dion v. State, 409 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Section 775.087(1), Florida Statutes (1983). As to the additional enhancement of the 3 year minimum mandatory see State v. Whitehead, 472 So. 2d 730 (Fla.1985); Carter v. State, 464 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Brown v. State, 460 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Lastly, it is within the broad discretion of a trial judge to determine which factors he will consider at the time of sentencing and we find no abuse of discretion in his considering statements by the relatives of the deceased. Therefore the conviction, final judgment and sentence be and they are hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lightbourne v. Dugger, 829 F.2d 1012 (11th Cir. 1987)…iate sentence.16 United States v. Rodriguez, 765 F. 2d 1546, 1554-55 (11th Cir. 1985). At least one Florida court has ruled that it is within a trial judge’s discretion to consider statements by relatives of the deceased victim. See Howard v. State, 473 So. 2d 10, 11 (Fla.3d DCA 1985). In addition, hearsay testimony may be considered during sentencing so long as the objectionable testimony does not serve as the basis for the sentence. See Rodriguez, 765 F. 2d at 1555. Here, although the trial judge was admit…
Authorities Cited
- Sanelco, Inc. v. Roger Wells & the Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 229 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 1969)
- Carter v. State, 464 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- THE Florida BAR v. Jones, 472 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1985)
- State v. Whitehead, 472 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1985)
- Brown v. State, 460 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- State v. Williams, 358 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Miller v. State, 438 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Smith v. State, 422 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Dion v. State, 409 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)