From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Whittington v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Aug 28, 1987
511 So. 2d 749 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

Opinion

No. 86-135.

August 28, 1987.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Pasco County, Lawrence Keough, J.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and John T. Kilcrease, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corces, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.


Appellant, Randy Whittington, raises two issues on his appeal from his judgment and sentence for the crime of sexual battery. We agree with appellant that the trial court erred in an ex post facto assessment of court costs against him under section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985). State v. Yost, 507 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 1987). We, therefore, strike the assessment of costs pursuant to section 27.3455.

Appellant's remaining issue was that the trial court erred when it denied a pretrial motion to exclude alleged inadmissible Williams, Rule evidence. We agree with the trial court that the evidence as proffered at the hearing on appellant's pretrial motion was clearly admissible under the Williams Rule. Furthermore, there was no contemporaneous objection at trial to the introduction of the testimony. Crespo v. State, 379 So.2d 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), cert. denied, 388 So.2d 1111 (Fla. 1981).

Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla. 1959).

We, therefore, affirm appellant's conviction and sentence but strike the costs imposed under section 27.3455.

SCHOONOVER, J., and PACK, R. WALLACE, Associate Judge, concur.


Summaries of

Whittington v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Aug 28, 1987
511 So. 2d 749 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)
Case details for

Whittington v. State

Case Details

Full title:RANDY WHITTINGTON, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Aug 28, 1987

Citations

511 So. 2d 749 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

Citing Cases

Liotta v. State

We agree with appellant that the trial court erred in an ex post facto assessment of court costs against him…