Case Name: Samuel ROMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1983-09-27
Citations: 438 So. 2d 487
Docket Number: No. 82-290
Parties: Samuel ROMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before HUBBART and DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 438
Pages: 487–488

Head Matter:
Samuel ROMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 82-290.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Sept. 27, 1983.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Howard K. Blumberg, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Marti A. Rothenberg and Richard Doran, Asst. At-tys. Gen., for appellee.
Before HUBBART and DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The defendant Samuel Roman appeals his conviction and sentence for attempted armed robbery. The central contention urged on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying the defendant's timely motion for a mistrial after the arresting officer gave testimony at trial indicating that the defend ant was involved in a robbery for which he was not charged. It would serve no purpose to detail the precise testimony nor elaborate further on the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that we are persuaded that a Williams violation occurred below, that the defendant was substantially prejudiced thereby, and that a reversal is necessarily mandated herein. See e.g., Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 847, 80 S.Ct. 102, 4 L.Ed.2d 86 (1959), and cases collected therein; Mann v. State, 22 Fla. 600 (1886); Selph v. State, 22 Fla. 537 (1886); Green v. State, 190 So.2d 42 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966). Moreover, we specifically reject the state's central contention in' reply that the error was harmless. Harris v. State, 427 So.2d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Vazquez v. State, 405 So.2d 177 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), approved in part, quashed in part, 419 So.2d 1088 (Fla.1982).
The judgment of conviction and sentence is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for a new trial.