Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

511 So. 2d 442

511 So.2d 442

12 Fla.L.Weekly 2032

Docket No. 86-2227.

Logan v. State

David Sylvester LOGAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided August 20, 1987.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1987-08-20

Relies on McEachern v. State · 425 So. 2d 214 - Fagan v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1987-08-20

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently December 2018

9 state decisions

501987199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*443 James B. Gibson, Public Defender and Michael S. Becker, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee and Paula C. Coffman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

¶3ORFINGER, Judge.

¶4The State concedes that the guidelines scoresheet includes points for an "additional offense at conviction" for which appellant had not yet been convicted because that charge had been severed for separate trial. Eliminating these points results in a lower presumptive sentence, so we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. There is no evidence in the record to support defendant's assertion that the trial court imposed a more severe penalty because defendant asserted his right to go to trial. Any such penalty would be clearly unconstitutional, McEachern v. State,388 So.2d 244 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), but the sentence imposed was within the limits of what was believed to be the appropriate presumptive guidelines sentence.

¶5We reject appellant's contention that the trial court erred in refusing to allow the arresting officer or defendant's captor to testify as to defendant's exculpatory statements made over four hours after the burglary. The defendant chose not to testify at trial. The self-serving statements, made under circumstances showing their lack of trustworthiness, are clearly hearsay and are not admissible under any of the hearsay exceptions. § 90.801, Fla. Stat. (1985); Fagan v. State,425 So.2d 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding this proposed hearsay testimony.

¶6Conviction AFFIRMED, Sentence VACATED and REMANDED.

¶7DAUKSCH and SHARP, JJ., concur.

/511/so2d/442 · .json · Public domain