RICHARDSON v. STATE (2022)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Torie Germanyllashea RICHARDSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D21-1022

Decided: July 13, 2022

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Kevin P. Steiger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and David Welch, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Appellant was convicted by a jury of sexual crimes he committed against a child. He argues on appeal the trial court made insufficient findings when it admitted child hearsay statements under section 90.803(23)(c), Florida Statutes (2020). We held in Coleman v. State, 315 So. 3d 166 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021), that to preserve this argument for appellate review, the trial court must be put on notice of the alleged deficiency after its ruling. Appellant concedes he did not make a sufficient objection under Coleman. Because this issue was not preserved, we affirm. We reject Appellant's second argument without further comment.

Affirmed.

Richardson's counsel made sufficient objections under Hopkins v. State, 632 So. 2d 1372, 1375 (Fla. 1994) and In Interest of R.L.R., 647 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), but because the trial court's ruling on the merits of the child hearsay issue is supportable, affirmance is warranted.

Per Curiam.

Winokur and Long, JJ., concur; Makar, J., concurs in result with opinion.

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Out of date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