MCARTHUR HELMS, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Defendant McArthur Helms appealed his conviction and sentence for sexual battery. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed both the conviction and upward departure sentence, finding no reversible error in the trial court's restrictions on defendant's testimony or its sentencing procedure.
The court affirmed both the conviction and sentence. Regarding testimony: defendant's failure to object to the exclusion of testimony and his acquiescence to the restriction precluded reversal. Regarding sentencing: the upward departure was supported by valid bases—the victim's extraordinary trauma and the nature of the crime committed in the victim's bed with the baby present—and no reversible error occurred in the trial judge preparing the departure order before the sentencing hearing.
[1] A defendant's failure to object to the exclusion of testimony, even if relevant to the defense, may constitute acquiescence and waive the right to appeal that exclusion.
[2] A trial court's preparation of a sentencing departure order prior to the sentencing hearing is not reversible error when based on trial evidence and when the defendant of…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“While those matters appear to us to have been relevant to defendant's defense, defendant did not object to their exclusion, see Page v. State, 412 So.2d 454 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), and, in fact, acquiesced thereto which may well have been justified for tactical reasons.”
Establishes that failure to object to exclusion of testimony and acquiescence thereto bars reversal on appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant was convicted of sexual battery against a victim in her bed where her baby was sleeping. When the victim pleaded with defendant not to hurt …
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 Upward Departure From Sentencing Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Judge.
Defendant appeals from his conviction and sentence for sexual battery.
We affirm the conviction. Defendant argues that the trial court erroneously restricted his testimony by instructing him to not testify to matters which had been contained in the proffer of his testimony which the trial court referred to as only “ancillary.” While those matters appear to us to have been relevant to defendant’s defense, defendant did not object to their exclusion, see Page v. State, 412 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), and, in fact, acquiesced thereto which may well have been justified for tactical reasons.
We affirm the sentence which constituted an upward departure from the guidelines recommended sentence. We do not conclude there was reversible error under the circumstances of this case in the trial judge having prepared her sentencing departure order prior to the sentencing hearing. The order was based upon evidence at the trial, and defendant offered no evidence at the sentencing hearing.
Two of the trial court’s reasons for departure were that the trauma suffered by the victim was greater than the ordinary trauma suffered by a victim in this type of case and, bearing upon that reason, that the crime was committed in the victim’s bed where her baby was sleeping. There was a valid basis for departure. When, according to the testimony, defendant jumped upon the victim, he said, in response to her plea that he not hurt her baby, that he would not do so if the victim did not scream. Thereafter the victim was in shock, became catatonic, and was hospi talized for psychiatric care. See State v. Rousseau, 509 So. 2d 281 (Fla.1987); Casteel v. State, 498 So. 2d 1249 (Fla.1986); Mora v. State, 515 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). That, as defendant argues, there was no showing that the baby witnessed the crime is not determinative. See Casteel, 498 So. 2d at 1253; Mora, 515 So. 2d at 293.
We need not address whether the trial court’s other reason for departure — that defendant had previously been convicted of handling and fondling the same victim— was valid. See Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla.1985).
AFFIRMED.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- City OF Atl. Beach v. Bull, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)
- Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)
- State v. Rousseau, 509 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1987)
- Casteel v. State, 498 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 1986)
- Page v. State, 412 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Mora v. State, 515 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)