MIDDLETON v. STATE (2000)

District Court of Appeal of Florida,Third District.

Mark MIDDLETON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D99-107.

Decided: May 31, 2000

Before COPE, GODERICH and SHEVIN, JJ.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Ivy R. Ginsberg, Special Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Margaret A. Brenan, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Mark Middleton appeals his convictions for armed robbery, armed kidnapping, sexual battery, and two firearm-related charges. We think the trial court's rulings regarding the scope of the hearsay exception for statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment, see § 90.803(4), Fla. Stat. (1997), were within discretion. If there was any error-and we see none-it was entirely harmless given that the victim testified to the same information.

The consecutive mandatory minimum firearm sentences were permissible given that defendant-appellant Middleton first committed an armed robbery on the victim at a bus stop, and then compelled the victim to walk with him to a more secluded location, where he committed two sexual batteries at gunpoint. See Murray v. State, 491 So.2d 1120 (Fla.1986).

Affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network