ERMON LEE LANE, 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.
Ermon Lee Lane appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of his prior felony convictions despite his offer to stipulate to his felon status. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, following binding Florida precedent, but certified a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court regarding whether that precedent should be reconsidered in light of a contrary federal ruling.
The court affirmed Lane's conviction, holding that the trial court properly admitted the prior conviction evidence and did not abuse its discretion. The probative value of the prior convictions was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. However, the court certified a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court regarding whether Parker v. State should be overruled in favor of the Old Chief analysis.
[1] A defendant's offer to stipulate to prior felony status does not obligate the state to accept the stipulation; the admissibility of evidence of prior convictions is withi…
[2] Evidence of prior felony convictions is admissible in a prosecution for unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon unless its probative value is substantially…
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“[T]he state is not bound by the defendant's offer to stipulate to essential elements of the crime, stating the exclusion of such relevant evidence is left to the discretion of the trial court based on traditional grounds.”
Establishes that a defendant's stipulation does not prevent the state from introducing evidence of essential elements of a crime; the trial court retains discretion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLane was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under Florida law. At trial, the state introduced certified copies of Lane…
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 Convicted Felon cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Ermon Lee Lane appeals his conviction and sentence for unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, sections 790.28, 775.084(4), Florida Statutes (1995). We affirm.
Lane’s prior felony convictions were essential to prove the “convicted felon” element of this charge. The trial court properly admitted into evidence the certified copies of Lane’s prior convictions for battery, escape, and attempted robbery.
Lane’s offer to stipulate to his felony status is not reason to reverse this conviction. “[T]he state is not bound by the defendant’s offer to stipulate to essential elements of the crime, stating the exclusion of such relevant evidence is left to the discretion of the trial court based on traditional grounds.” Parker v. State, 408 So. 2d 1037, 1038 (Fla.1982). “Therefore, proof of conviction is relevant evidence and is admissible unless its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading of the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Id. at 1038. Lane argued that the introduction of his prior convictions, especially his prior conviction for escape, were unfairly prejudicial and would taint the juror’s minds. However, the probative value regarding the evidence of Lane’s prior felony convictions was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading of the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
We are aware of the recent United States Supreme Court opinion in Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 117 S.Ct. 644, 136 L.Ed.2d 574 (1997), which held that a trial court abused its discretion when it spurned the defendant’s offer to stipulate and instead admitted the defendant’s prior felony conviction. However, Parker is the binding authority from the Florida Supreme Court which is directly on point. The United States Supreme Court construed federal law in Old Chief. Therefore, its conclusions are not binding on Florida courts when construing Florida statutes and rules.
As in Brown v. State, 700 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), we certify the same question as a matter of great public importance:
SHOULD THE DECISION IN PARKER V. STATE, 408 So. 2d 1037 (Fla.1982), BE OVERRULED IN FAVOR OF THE ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENTIARY REQUIREMENTS FOR PROOF OF CONVICTED FELON STATUS IN FIREARM VIOLATION CASES ESTABLISHED FOR FEDERAL COURTS IN OLD CHIEF V. UNITED STATES, 519 U.S. 172, 117 S.Ct. 644, 136 L.Ed.2d 574 (1997)?
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Quinn v. State, 713 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…g by holding that the statutory time-periods set forth in the IAD may be considered in conjunction with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, this court is bound by supreme court precedent. See Lane v. State, 706 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Watkins v. State, 705 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Brown v. State, 700 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Titus v. State, 696 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), approved, 707 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 1998). In this case, appellant filed his…
-
Ermon Lee Lane v. State, 783 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 2001)…F THE ANALYSIS OF THE EVI-DENTIARY REQUIREMENTS FOR PROOF OF CONVICTED FELON STATUS IN FIREARM VIOLATION [*1054] CASES ESTABLISHED FOR FEDERAL COURTS IN OLD CHIEF V. UNITED STATES, 519 U.S. 172, 117 S.Ct. 644, 136 L.Ed.2d 574 (1997)? Lane v. State, 706 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). The petitioner contends, and the State concedes, that the outcome of this case is controlled by our decision in Brown v. State, 719 So. 2d 882 (Fla.1998), wherein we answered the same question in the affirmative and held that the…
Authorities Cited
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1997)
- Parker v. State, 408 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 1982)
- Brown v. State, 700 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)