RICKIE RENORIED MATHIS, 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.
In this direct criminal appeal, the Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction and sentence of Rickie Renoried Mathis, rejecting challenges to the admission of photographic identification evidence, the defendant's absence during jury challenge bench conferences, and claims that his habitual violent felony offender sentence was racially motivated.
The court affirmed on all three issues: (1) the photographic identification was not impermissibly suggestive under the totality of circumstances; (2) the defendant's rights were not violated under the rule in effect at the time of trial, though the court certified a question of great public importance regarding application of the later Coney decision; and (3) the habitual violent felony offender sentence was proper.
[1] A pretrial photographic identification is permissible if, under the totality of the circumstances, the procedure does not give rise to a substantial likelihood of irrepar…
[2] A defendant's absence from bench conferences during the exercise of jury challenges does not constitute reversible error if the trial occurred before the release of the opinion in Coney v. …
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Under the totality of the circumstances, the procedure did not give rise to a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.”
Establishes the standard for evaluating the admissibility of potentially suggestive photographic identification evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Mathis was convicted and sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender. At trial, he was present in the courtroom during jury selection bu…
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 Substantial Likelihood Of Irreparable Misidentification cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this direct criminal appeal, appellant raises three issues: (1) whether the trial court erred when it permitted evidence of an impermissibly suggestive pretrial photographic identification; (2) whether his absence from the bench during the exercise of jury challenges constitutes reversible error; and (3) whether he is entitled to have his sentence as an habitual violent felony offender set aside, and to be resentenced pursuant to the guidelines, because the state attorney’s decision to request habitual offender treatment was racially motivated. We affirm. Appellant s first issue is based on the assertion that a pretrial photographic identification was impermissibly suggestive and, accordingly, should not have been permitted in evidence. Our review of the record satisfies us that it was not error to permit evidence regarding the pretrial photographic identification. Under the totality of the circumstances, the procedure did not give rise to a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. State v. Cromartie, 419 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 1st DCA), review dismissed, 422 So. 2d 842 (Fla.1982).
By his second issue, appellant asserts that he is entitled to a new trial because, although present in the courtroom during jury selection, he was not physically present at bench conferences during which jury challenges were exercised. Appellant’s trial took place before release of the opinion in Coney v. State, 653 So. 2d 1009 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 315, 133 L.Ed.2d 218 (1995). Accordingly, we conclude that Coney is inapplicable. Lett v. State, 668 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Pursuant to the rule which preceded that announced in Coney, appellant’s rights were not violated. Francis v. State, 413 So. 2d 1175 (Fla.1982). However, as in Lett, we certify the following to be a question of great public importance:
DOES THE DECISION IN Coney v. State, 653 So. 2d 1009 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 315, 133 L.Ed.2d 218 (1995), APPLY TO “PIPELINE CASES,” THAT IS, THOSE OF SIMILARLY SITUATED DEFENDANTS WHOSE CASES WERE PENDING ON DIRECT APPEAL OR OTHERWISE NOT YET FINAL WHEN THE OPINION WAS RELEASED?
Finally, we affirm appellant’s habitual violent felony offender sentence on the authority of Jones v. State, 676 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
AFFIRMED.
WEBSTER, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rickie Renoried Mathis v. State, 688 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 1997)…denied, — U.S. —, 116 S.Ct. 315, 133 L.Ed.2d 218 (1995), APPLY TO “PIPELINE CASES,” THAT IS, THOSE OF SIMILARLY SITUATED DEFENDANTS WHOSE CASES WERE PENDING ON DIRECT APPEAL OR OTHERWISE NOT YET FINAL WHEN THE OPINION WAS RELEASED? Mathis v. State, 675 So. 2d 1027, 1028 (Fla.App.1996). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We answered this question in Boyett v. State, 668 So. 2d 308 (Fla.1996). We acknowl [*335] edged there that we had incorrectly accepted the State’s concession that not allow…
Authorities Cited
- Coney v. State, 653 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 1995)
- Francis v. State, 413 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 1982)
- Alfredco Lett v. State, 668 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- State v. Cromartie, 419 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Torace Jones and Charlie Gasper v. State, 676 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)