Bolden v. StateBolden v. State
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
A jury convicted Deatrick Bolden of burglary of a dwelling and petit theft. Bolden‘s trial was tainted by the imрroper admission of evidence concerning other unrelated crimes. Therefore, we reverse his convictions and remand for a new trial.
At Bolden‘s trial, two witnesses testified they noticed an unfamiliar silver car parked in their neighbor‘s driveway. The neighbor was not home, so the men investigаted. They saw that the screen door was open and that one of the panels on the inside door had been removed. As one of the witnеsses went to the back door, a man dressed in a red shirt and khaki shorts and wearing several gold chains came out the front door carrying a plаstic cup. One of the witnesses saw him clearly, and both observed him racing away in the silver car. The witnesses called the police and described the suspect and his car, including a partial tag number.
About 30 minutes after this report, a police officer found the car at an apartment complex. The manager of the complex said the car had arrived a few minutes earlier, driven by a man who matched the witnesses’ description of the suspect. Three other uniformed officers arrived, and they all went to the driver‘s apartment. The officers knocked and Bоlden answered. He matched the physical description the witnesses had provided, but was wearing different clothes.
The officers told Bolden they were investigating a felony and asked if they could enter the apartment. Bolden
The officers also discovered a large brown bag containing jewelry under Bolden‘s sink. At that point they decided they should obtain a search warrant. The warrant authorized a search for: (1) U.S. change amounting to approximately $70; (2) a large white plastic cup bearing the logo of a Las Vegas casino; (3) clothing possibly worn by the suspect during the commission of the burglary; (4) documents linking the car used during the burglary to Bolden; and (5) documents showing Bolden was the lessee of the apartment. After obtaining the warrant, the officers seized a number of pawn slips, a gym bag, credit cards, watches and other jewelry, as well as the clothing. The list of the items retrieved is over thirty pages long. The police videotaped the search.
At Bolden‘s trial, over defense objections, the State played the videotape of the search. The State also presented several witnesses who testified that items found during the search were taken from their homes during burglaries unconnected with the charged crime. The court abused its discretion in admitting this evidence. See Chandler v. State, 702 So. 2d 186, 195 (Fla. 1997).
The test for admitting evidence of other crimes is relevance. Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654, 660 (Fla. 1959). In Bolden‘s case the State argued that the evidence concerning the other burglaries was relevant to prove identity and opportunity. See
As to opportunity, on appeal the State claims the evidence was admissible to establish the entire context in which the criminal conduct arose. See Foster v. State, 679 So. 2d 747, 753 (Fla. 1996). But this argument must fail as well. Cases applying this theory involve a сontinuous chain of criminal events. See, e.g., id. (noting that defendant planned to recoup gambling losses and all crimes discussed at trial were part of thаt scheme); Heiney v. State, 447 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 1984) (explaining that all crimes were part of defendant‘s plan to avoid criminal charges for shooting his roommate). No evidence at Bolden‘s trial connected the three burglaries, other than the fact they were committed around the same time in the same areа.
Bolden has also challenged the admissibility of evidence seized from his apartment on the ground that the search was illegal. We do not address this argument vis-a-vis the evidence of crimes other than the chаrged crimes, because we have determined that it must be excluded as irrelevant. Bolden is free to challenge the legality of the seizure of this evidence in any prosecutions based on the crimes to which it is relevant. As to the evidence seized that is relevant here—the clothеs that were found on the bedroom floor and that matched the description given by the eyewitnesses—we find the search was legal insofar as it еxtended to these items that were in plain view. The court did not err in denying Bolden‘s motion to suppress this evidence. Jacobs v. State, 733 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); State v. Futch, 715 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).
Finally, Bolden also claims errоr in the fact that he was prosecuted by the Office of the Statewide Prosecutor (OSP) rather than the Lee County State Attorney. On appeal he contends the circuit court should have dismissed this case because the OSP lacked jurisdiction to prosecute his crime, which was committеd in only one judicial circuit. See
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a new trial.
WHATLEY and CASANUEVA, JJ., concur.