PERCELL ANTHONY WISE, 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.
Percell Anthony Wise appeals his convictions for robbery with a deadly weapon and aggravated flight, arguing the trial court erred by admitting his statement about smoking crack cocaine on the night of the offenses. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding any error in admitting the statement to be harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
Any error in admitting Wise's statements regarding crack cocaine use was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt. The overwhelming evidence of guilt, including surveillance video identification, witness descriptions of clothing and vehicle details, and Wise's own incriminating admissions upon arrest, rendered any such error harmless.
[1] An erroneous admission of collateral crimes is presumptively harmful and is only harmless if it can be said beyond a reasonable doubt that the verdict could not have been…
[2] Evaluating harmless error requires an evaluation of the impact of erroneously admitted evidence in light of the overall strength of the case and the defenses asserted.
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“An erroneous admission of collateral crimes is presumptively harmful, and is only harmless 'if it can be said beyond a reasonable doubt that the verdict could not have been affected by the error.'”
Establishes the high standard for harmless error in cases of erroneously admitted collateral crime evidence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWise was arrested for robbing a store. Surveillance video from the store showed a person resembling Wise committing the robbery. When arrested, Wise w…
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 Presumption Of Harm cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, J. .
Percell Anthony Wise appeals his convictions for robbery with a deadly weapon and aggravated flight. We affirm.
Wise argues that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence the statement he made to police that he had smoked crack cocaine on the evening that the charged offenses were committed and that the events of the evening were hazy. An erroneous admission of collateral crimes is presumptively harmful, and is only harmless “if it can be said beyond a reasonable doubt that the verdict could not have been affected by the error.” Miller v. State, 804 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (quoting Czubak v. State, 570 So. 2d 925, 928 (Fla.1990)).
Evaluating harmless error requires more than a mere totaling of testimony, and, in most instances, more than a mere reading of a portion of the record in the abstract. It entails an evaluation of the impact of the erroneously admitted evidence in light of the overall strength of the case and the defenses asserted.... It must, in most cases, be evaluated through the examination of the entire trial transcript.
Steward v. State, 619 So. 2d 394, 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).
After a review of the record, we conclude that if there was any error in admitting Wise’s statements, the error was harmless. First, the investigating officer testified at trial that the person on the store’s surveillance videotape of the robbery looked the same as Wise. When Wise was arrested, he was without a shirt and wearing knee-length shorts — a description given by the witnesses. Furthermore, although witnesses who were inside the store gave differing descriptions of the robber’s vehicle, the witnesses outside the store testified that the suspect fled in a burgundy-colored van with a temporary tag and a “Phil Bettis” sticker. When Wise was apprehended, he was driving a red van with a temporary tag''and “Phil Bettis” sticker. Furthermore, Wise told the police upon arrest that he was glad it was over, did not-mean to hurt anyone, and usually did not do things like that. Additionally, when asked if he robbed the store, Wise responded, “Well, whatever they said I did, I guess I did it.”
Wise’s convictions are AFFIRMED.
GRIFFIN and MONACO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jomolla v. State, 990 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…ionally, the evidentiary rulings made by the trial court are subject to the harmless error test. See Denmark v. State, 927 So. 2d 1079, 1082 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (applying the harmless error test to the erroneous admission of evidence); Wise v. State, 860 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). The defendant claimed at trial that he struck Middlebrooks because Middle-brooks provoked him, not because he was prejudiced against African Americans. Thus, the defendant’s motivation was a material issue in dispute. The defen…
Authorities Cited
- Czubak v. State, 570 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 1990)
- Riley Steward v. State, 619 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Miller v. State, 804 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)