Nevels v. State, 973 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). · Go Syfert
Search
Nevels v. State, 973 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: C.P.C. v. State (fladistctapp, 2015-10-30)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) C.P.C. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
“Consistent with that rule, a fingerprint left in a location accessible by the public, without more, is' insufficient to establish the identity of the culprit.” Hill v. State, 973 So.2d 655, 655 (Fla. 2d.DCA 2008).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Miranda v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
See id. at 483; Hill v. State, 973 So.2d 655, 655-56 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Mutcherson v. State, 696 So.2d 420, 422 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); cf. Burkett, 992 So.2d at 851-52 (distinguishing Ballard based on footprint evidence establishing that defendant had been at the scene of the murder at or near the time of the murder and directly contradicting defendant’s statements).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cordero-Artigas v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Similarly, in Hill v. State, 973 So.2d 655, 655-56 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008), we held that the State’s only evidence against the defendant, his fingerprints found on a piece of broken window glass outside the burglary scene, was insufficient to convict him because the State presented no evidence that the fingerprints could have been made only at the time of the crime.
discussed Cited "see" L.A.R. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hill v. State, 973 So.2d 655, 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (reversing burglary conviction where “the only evidence implicating [the appellant] were the fingerprints, and the State failed to show that the prints could only have been made at the time of the crime”); Seneca v. State, 760 So.2d 995, 995-6 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (holding that “where the only evidence linking appellant to the burglary were his fingerprints on a car battery apparently thrown through the window of the burgled structure” and “the state failed to prove that the fingerprints could only have been made at the time the…
discussed Cited "see" L.A.R. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hill v. State, 973 So. 2d 655, 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (reversing burglary conviction where "the only evidence implicating [the appellant] were the fingerprints, and the State failed to show that the prints could only have been made at the time of the crime"); Seneca v. State, 760 So. 2d 995, 995-6 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (holding that "where the only evidence linking appellant to the burglary were his fingerprints on a car battery apparently thrown through the window of the burgled structure" and "the state failed to prove that the fingerprints could only have been made at the time the crime w…
Ray Donovan NEVELS
v.
STATE of Florida
No. 2D05-5297.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Feb 6, 2008.
973 So. 2d 655
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Richard J. Sanders, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant., Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and John M. Klawikofsky, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appel-lee.
Fulmer, Northcutt, Whatley.
Published
WHATLEY, Judge.

We consider Nevels’ appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari and deny the petition. See Woods v. State, 969 So.2d 408 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).

NORTHCUTT, C.J. and FULMER, J., Concur.