HAROLD C. KNIGHT, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT; JAMES LEE ALLEN, PETITIONER, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court held that trial courts have a mandatory duty under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.390 to instruct juries on penalties when defendants request such instructions. The Court quashed two District Court of Appeal decisions that had denied penalty instruction requests and reversed the underlying convictions.
Trial courts have a mandatory duty under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.390 to instruct juries on penalties when defendants request such instructions. The two District Court of Appeal decisions that affirmed the convictions despite denied penalty instruction requests were improper and conflicted with the correct legal standard.
[1] A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on penalties when requested, provided the point has been preserved on appeal.
[2] A defendant who has preserved the issue of penalty instructions on appeal is entitled to the benefit of a subsequent interpretation of the rule regarding such instruction…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the defendant, as well as all others who have preserved this point on appeal, receive the benefit of this interpretation of the rule.”
Establishes that defendants who properly raised the penalty instruction issue on appeal are entitled to retroactive benefit of the Supreme Court's ruling on the mandatory nature of the instruction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKnight was charged with breaking and entering and grand theft, and Allen was charged with robbery. In both cases, the defendants made specific request…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Retroactivity Of Judicial Decisions cases and more on FLexlaw
ADKINS, Justice.
We have for review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (Knight v. State, 379 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)), which allegedly conflicts with other decisions which place a mandatory duty upon the trial court to instruct on the penalties when so requested by the defendant.
Petitioner Knight was charged with breaking and entering and grand theft. At trial, a specific request was made by defendant for an instruction on the maximum penalty for each count. This request was denied. Defendant was found guilty, adjudged guilty, and sentenced. Upon appeal his conviction was affirmed with the statement: See Murray v. State, 378 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
We also have for review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (Allen v. State, No. 78-1787 (Fla. 5th DCA Aug. 18, 1978)), which allegedly conflicts with other decisions making the giving of an instruction on penalties mandatory under the provisions of Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.390.
The defendant Allen, (petitioner here), was charged by information with robbery. At trial, a specific request was made by defendant for a jury instruction on penalties, but the instructions were not given. Defendant was found guilty by the jury, adjudged guilty, and sentenced. Upon appeal the District Court of Appeal, Fifth District, affirmed the conviction with the statement: See Murray v. State, 378 So. 2d 111 (Fla.1980).
These petitions for certiorari were filed prior to the effective date of the 1980 amendment to article V, Florida Constitution. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.Const. (1972). Further briefs are unnecessary.
We have quashed the decision in Murray v. State. See Murray v. State, 403 So. 2d 417 (Fla.1981), for the reasons expressed in Tascano v. State, 393 So. 2d 540 (Fla.1980). In Tascano v. State we held that the decision would be applicable to all cases in which a jury trial is commenced on or after the effective date of the opinion. We then said: “the defendant, as well as all others who have preserved this point on appeal, receive the benefit of this interpretation of the rule.”
We accept jurisdiction in these cases, quash each of the decisions of the district court of appeal, and remand each cause with instructions to reverse the judgment of conviction and further remand same to the circuit court for a new trial.
It is so ordered.
SUNDBERG, C. J., and BOYD, OVER-TON, ENGLAND and McDONALD, JJ., concur. ALDERMAN, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1981)…should not apply. Murray v. State, 403 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1981). We have also accepted jurisdiction in Knight and Allen under the 1972 constitutional provision and granted relief in accordance with our decisions in Taseano and Murray. Knight v. State, 401 So. 2d 1333 (Fla. 1981). Petitioner Jollie’s treatment by the Fifth District Court of Appeal was identical to that of Allen and Knight. Jollie, however, became the victim of happenstance, delayed processing through the district court resulting in his case reac…
-
Smith v. State, 404 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…eserved the court has refused to find it harmless, and the prospective language of the ruling apparently excludes from its benefit only appeals concluded before its effective date. Murray v. State, 403 So. 2d 417 (Fla.1981); Knight v. State, et al., 401 So. 2d 1333 (Fla.1981); Williams v. State, 399 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). The present case also involves a sentencing inconsistency between the trial judge’s oral pronouncement, the written sentencing order, and the order of commitment. While such inconsis…
-
Morgan v. State, 405 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)…o “all others who have preserved this point on appeal.” 393 So. 2d at 541. On the authority of Tascano, the supreme court reversed and remanded two cases for new trials when specific requests were made for instructions on sentences. Knight v. State, 401 So. 2d 1333 (Fla.1981) (consolidated appeals). As this trial commenced before the effective date of Tascano, appellant must show that this point has been properly preserved on appeal. At the charge conference, appellant’s trial counsel made a demand “for all t…
Authorities Cited
- Tascano v. State, 393 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 1980)
- Murray v. State, 403 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1981)
- Murray v. State, 378 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Davis v. State, 379 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Knight v. State, 379 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)