BRUNO ABREU, 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.
The court held that the admission of prior acts of violence was proper or harmless error, but consecutive minimum mandatory sentences for crimes arising from the same criminal episode were improper.
Defendant was convicted of kidnapping, aggravated assault, aggravated battery, and sexual battery. The trial court admitted evidence of prior acts of …
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 Same Criminal Episode cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentences on multiple counts of kidnapping, aggravated assault, aggravated battery, and sexual battery. We affirm the convictions, reverse the sentencing order in part, and remand for resentencing.
We find no error in the trial court’s admission of evidence of defendant’s prior acts of violence against the victim. See Lazarowicz v. State, 561 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (evidence of defendant’s prior criminal conduct admissible to establish entire context in which crime committed). The evidence was admitted to counter defendant’s argument that the victim had provoked hita, and that the attacks in this case were isolated incidents. Even if admission of this evidence was error, it was harmless, as there is no reasonable possibility that it contributed to the conviction. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986).
We agree with defendant that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive minimum mandatory sentences. See Palmer v. State, 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1983) (trial court cannot sentence defendant to consecutive minimum mandatory sentences for crimes arising from same criminal episode). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for correction of the sentencing order to reflect that the minimum mandatory sentences shall be served concurrently. We affirm the sentences in all other regards.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fraley v. State, 641 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…ce defendant to concurrent terms on these offenses. Because these offenses arose from [*130] the same criminal episode in the same location — the adult book store — the imposition of consecutive minimum mandatory sentences was error. Abreu v. State, 610 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (trial court erred in sentencing defendant to consecutive minimum mandatory sentences for crimes that arose from same criminal episode), rev. denied, 623 So. 2d 493 (Fla.1993). As to the sentences that arose from the attempted car…
-
State v. Bruno Abreu, 650 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…rder. Defendant was convicted of multiple crimes and sentenced to life imprisonment. After appellate review in this court defendant petitioned for discretionary review in the Florida Supreme Court, which was denied June 25,1993. See Abreu v. State, 610 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), review denied, 623 So. 2d 493 (Fla.1993).1 On August 20, 1993 a special assistant public defender filed a timely motion to mitigate sentence. This was four days before the expiration of the 60-day period allowed by Rule 3.800(b)…
Authorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Dean v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1983)
- Lazarowicz v. State, 561 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)