final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion
under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Marianne L.
Thomas, Public Defender, and Joanna A. Mauer, Assistant
Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Moody, Attorney General, and Benjamin L. Hoffman, Assistant
Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
these consolidated appeals, Appellant, Akeen Kadoni Paul,
appeals his judgment and sentence for burglary of a dwelling
and resisting an officer without violence and the order
revoking his probation and the sentence resulting therefrom.
Appellant raises four issues on appeal, none of which warrant
reversal. We, therefore, affirm.
2013, Appellant pled guilty to five counts of armed robbery
and one count of possession of less than twenty grams of
cannabis. The offenses occurred when Appellant was eighteen
years old. Appellant was sentenced as a youthful offender to
six years' imprisonment, "of which 4 [years were to]
be served by imprisonment followed by 2 [years]
February 2017, a probation violation report was filed,
alleging that Appellant committed the new law violations of
burglary of a dwelling and resisting an officer without
violence. While the State charged Appellant with these
offenses in a separate case, the probation violation
evidentiary hearing and the trial on the new law offenses
occurred simultaneously. The State filed a notice of intent
to classify Appellant as a prison releasee reoffender
("PRR") in the new law violation case, relying on
Appellant's 2013 conviction and sentence for armed
Appellant filed a motion in limine in which he asked the
trial court to prohibit the State from introducing any
evidence "relating to or testimony regarding [him]
having a gun and drugs on his person and any other reference
to [him] regarding a gun and drugs." In opposition to
the motion, the prosecutor asserted in part:
Your Honor, one of the State's witnesses, in the police
reports and in depositions, did state that one of the
suspects - there are three in this case that were observed
committing the burglary - made a statement to a witness at
the time the burglary was being committed, stating that he
needed to run and that he had a stick and he had five seconds
Now, the State is intending to elicit this testimony as a
statement of a co-conspirator. . . .
Also . . . in this particular case, the State is not
necessarily introducing that statement for the truth of the
matter asserted. We are not going - or at this point do not
plan on asserting that anyone was actually armed, solely that
this statement is evidence that this witness interrupted a
burglary in process, that the persons that were there, by the
statement, indicated they did not have permission to be
there, that they had the intent to commit an offense, and
that is relevant to proving the charge of burglary . . . .
counsel argued in response that the statements were not
relevant and were hearsay and that admission of the
statements would violate the confrontation clause. The trial
court denied Appellant's motion in part, finding
"that this anticipated statement is a statement of a
co-conspirator, which would not be subjected to the
confrontation clause." It further stated, "So I do
find that would not be hearsay, it's not being offered
for the truth ...