Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

15 So. 3d 792

Cooper v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2009-07-17

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently February 2010

1 state decisions

Relies on State v. Vazquez · 826 So. 2d 916 - Smithers v. State · Tucker v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2009-07-17

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

EVANDER, J.

¶1 Cooper was convicted, after a jury trial, of possession of a firearm by a convicted *793 felon, 1 and possession of less than 20 grams of cannabis. 2 We affirm the firearm conviction without further discussion. However, we reverse the cannabis conviction and remand for a new trial on that count, because the trial court should have granted Cooper’s pretrial motion to sever the two counts.

¶2 The decision to grant or deny a motion for severance rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. Smith-ers v. State, 826 So.2d 916, 923 (Fla.2002). However, that discretion is sharply curtailed when it concerns a request to sever a charge of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Tucker v. State, 884 So.2d 168, 172 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Here, the admission of evidence that Cooper was a convicted felon was necessary to prove the count charging him with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, but was inadmissible and unduly prejudicial with regard to the cannabis count. See State v. Vazquez, 419 So.2d 1088 (Fla.1982); Tucker; Craft v. State, 441 So.2d 704 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Smith v. State, 434 So.2d 18 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).

¶3 AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.

PALMER and SAWAYA, JJ, concur.
1

¶4 . § 790.23, Fla. Stat. (2007).

2

¶5 . § 893.13(6)00, Fla. Stat. (2007).

/15/so3d/792 · .json · Public domain