ISAAC BROWN, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
Isaac Brown appealed his robbery conviction on the ground that the trial court erroneously refused to give a jury instruction on the maximum and minimum penalties for the crime charged, as required by Tascano v. State and Florida Criminal Procedure Rule 3.390. The appellate court reversed and remanded because the mandatory penalty instruction requirement cannot be excused by application of the harmless error rule.
Upon request, a trial court must give an instruction on the maximum and minimum penalties attached to the crime charged, as required by Tascano v. State and Rule 3.390 Fla.R.Crim.P. The harmless error rule cannot be applied to cure a violation of this mandatory requirement, as doing so would negate the mandatory provision of the rule.
[1] A trial court must instruct the jury on the maximum and minimum penalties for the crime charged when requested by the defendant.
[2] The harmless error rule cannot be used to cure the error of failing to provide a mandatory jury instruction on penalties.
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“It is clear now that upon request such an instruction must be given.”
Establishes the mandatory nature of the Tascano penalty instruction requirement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrown was identified by two robbery victims at gunpoint. In addition to the victims' identifications, police recovered a gun and the victims' purse fr…
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 Harmless Error Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
Appellant Brown was identified by two women whom he allegedly robbed at gun point. In addition to the victims’ identification of appellant as the robber, the police found a gun and the victims’ purse in the white pick-up truck which appellant drove away from the robbery scene.
Appellant articulates three points for our consideration on appeal but only one has any merit.
Appellant requested a Tascano instruction on the maximum and minimum penalties for the crime charged. The trial court denied the request and appellant objected to the denial. Although appellant’s counsel did not then state the grounds for the requested instruction she had clearly done so earlier during a colloquy between herself and the trial judge. Counsel fully apprized the trial judge of her contention that current decisions of the Supreme Court of Florida required the trial court upon request to instruct the jury on the penalties attached to the crime in issue. Understandably in view of the state of the flux existing in the law on this question at that time, the trial judge disagreed with counsel and refused to give the requested instruction.
It is clear now that upon request such an instruction must be given. Tascano v. State, 393 So. 2d 540 (Fla.1980). The provisions of Rule 3.390 Fla.R.Crim.P. are mandatory. It also seems clear that the harmless error rule set forth in Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1979), cannot be resorted to in order to cure the error because as the Supreme Court held in Murray v. State, 403 So. 2d 417 (Fla.1981):
The district court of appeal in the case sub judice held that Rule 3.390 had a mandatory meaning, but affirmed the conviction of the defendant on the basis of harmless error. If this mandatory duty could be circumvented on the basis of the harmless error rule, the effect of the mandatory provision in the rule would be negated. (Emphasis added.)
See, too, Williams v. State, 399 So. 2d 999 (Fla.3d DCA 1981); Palmer v. State, 401 So. 2d 1177, (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
Accordingly, the judgment and sentence appealed from are reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
ANSTEAD and HURLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Tascano v. State, 393 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 1980)
- Murray v. State, 403 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1981)
- Williams v. State, 399 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Palmer v. State, 401 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)