BENOIT VERREAUTT, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
A defendant's failure to timely object to the limitation of peremptory challenges precludes relief on appeal.
The defendant was charged with robbery while carrying a firearm and was entitled to ten peremptory challenges but was mistakenly limited to six. He di…
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 Jury Selection cases and more on FLexlaw
DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.
Verreautt was charged with and convicted of an offense punishable by imprisonment for life, robbery while carrying a firearm. § 812.13(2)(a), Fla.Stat. (1979). He correctly claims that by virtue of the charge, he was entitled to ten peremptory challenges during the selection of the jury. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.350(a). But while the trial court mistakenly limited Verreautt to six peremptory challenges, Verreautt made no assertion that he was entitled to more until well after the verdict was returned and judgment pronounced.1 Compare Newsome v. State, 355 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Bell v. State, 338 So. 2d 1328 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). The error was such that had it been timely called to the attention of the trial court, it could have been immediately cor- reeted. Verreautt’s failure to timely object to the limitation imposed precludes him from relief on appeal.2 Pinder v. State, 396 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). The other grounds for reversal raised by Verreautt are totally without merit.
Affirmed.
. Verreautt’s earlier assertion that he was entitled to an additional peremptory challenge arose from his counsel’s belief that he had exercised five peremptories although entitled to six, while the clerk’s records showed he had exercised six. There is no indication that the clerk was wrong and, moreover, no showing that the defendant wanted to excuse a particular juror. See Young v. State, 234 So. 2d 341 (Fla.1970).
. Since Verreautt accepted the limitation without complaint, we do not reach the issue whether he was prejudiced by the ruling where he exercised the six peremptories given. Compare Meade v. State, 85 So. 2d 613 (Fla.1956); Newsome v. State, supra; and Bell v. State, supra, with Harris v. State, 349 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dante v. State, 903 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…has long held that a timely objection is required to preserve the issue for appeal, as it affords the trial judge with the opportunity to immediately correct the error. We affirmed the defendant’s conviction for armed robbery in Verreautt v. State, 411 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 418 So. 2d 1281 (Fla.1982), where the trial judge mistakenly limited Ver-reautt to six peremptory challenges, when he was entitled to ten.1 We concluded that while the trial court mistakenly limited Verreautt to six pe…
-
Maio v. State, 531 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge. In Verreautt v. State, 411 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), we held that a defendant who was entitled to ten peremptory challenges by virtue of being charged with a life felony, but who did not timely object when the trial court mistakenly limited him to six challenges, failed to preserve…
-
Enamorado v. State, 733 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…hat he was entitled to more peremptory challenges as a matter of right was not presented to the trial court, and is thus not properly preserved for appellate review. See Maio v. State, 531 So. 2d 1055, 1056-57 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Verreautt v. State, 411 So. 2d 234, 234-35 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). We decline to entertain on this direct appeal appellant’s alternative claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to recognize that appellant was entitled to ten peremptory challenges, rather than six. This rul…
Authorities Cited
- Young v. State, 234 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 1970)
- Meade v. State, 85 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 1956)
- Harrison Pinder v. State, 396 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Bell v. State, 338 So. 2d 1328 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Newsome v. State, 355 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Perkins v. LA Gorce Country Club, 349 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)