PEDRO QUEVEDO, 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 denied Quevedo's petition for review, holding that he failed to establish a clear and direct conflict between the district court's affirmation of his conviction and the prior Wilson v. State decision regarding improper joinder of defendants in criminal trials.
The Supreme Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the decision because the district court opinion did not clearly establish whether a violation of Rule 3.150(b) actually occurred or whether the alleged violation was of the same character and gravity as the error in Wilson, making it impossible to determine if an express and direct conflict existed.
[1] A violation of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.150(b) regarding joinder of offenses or defendants may be deemed harmless error if it affirmatively appears that the v…
[2] A procedural right, such as the right to a proper joinder of defendants, is a vested right, and its denial constitutes reversible error unless shown to be harmless.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Procedural rights such as this are not to be granted or denied in the discretion of the court. They are vested rights the denial of which constitutes reversible error.”
Establishes that improper joinder of defendants is a vested procedural right whose violation is reversible error without requiring a showing of prejudice, as held in Wilson v. State.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceQuevedo was charged with second degree murder, and his brother was charged with attempted murder of the same victim from the same barroom brawl. The c…
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 Conflict Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
BOYD, Justice.
We accepted jurisdiction of this case to review the decision of the district court of appeal, Quevedo v. State, 413 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The petition for review was grounded upon the assertion that the decision below conflicted with the decision in Wilson v. State, 298 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974), cert. dismissed, 327 So. 2d 35 (Fla.1976).
The decision of the district court of appeal in the instant case was announced in an opinion which reads in its entirety as follows:
It affirmatively appears that any violation of Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.150(b) in the joinder in the same trial of the second degree murder count against the appellant Quev-edo, and a charge of attempted murder of the same victim, occurring during the same barroom brawl, against Quevedo’s brother, was entirely harmless. The judgment under review is therefore affirmed. Sec. 924.33, Fla.Stat. (1979); see, Zeigler v. State, 402 So. 2d 365 (Fla.1981); Harris v. State, 414 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1982); Damon v. State, 397 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1981); compare Wilson v. State, 298 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974), cert. dismissed, 327 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 1976); Paul v. State, 385 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 1980).
In Wilson v. State it was held that the joinder of charges against two defendants in a single information was improper because the joinder of defendants met none of the criteria set forth in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.150(b). In response to the state’s harmless error argument the court said “The state’s argument that appellant has failed to show any prejudice resulting from the joint trial misses the mark. Procedural rights such as this are not to be granted or denied in the discretion of the court. They are vested rights the denial of which constitutes reversible error.” 298 So. 2d at 435.
The opinion of the court below in the instant case merely says that “any violation" that may have occurred in the joinder of charges against the two defendants “affirmatively appears” to have been harmless. 413 So. 2d at 137. The opinion does not say whether there was a violation of the rule. We cannot tell from the face of the district court’s opinion whether the alleged violation was of the same character or gravity as the error found in Wilson. Therefore, it cannot be clearly shown that the decision below expressly and directly conflicts with a decision of another district court of appeal.
Having concluded that we do not have jurisdiction to review the decision below, we must also conclude that the petition for review should not have been accepted. The petition for review is therefore denied.
It is so ordered.
ALDERMAN, C.J., and OVERTON and McDONALD, JJ., concur. ADKINS, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Beltran v. State, 530 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…n that portion of the dissent which discussed the impact of the Williams rule (pertaining to similar act evidence) on the issue. In essence, then, the court skirted the conclusive presumption versus harmless error issue. Later, in Quevedo v. State, 436 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 1983), the court held that it was without jurisdiction to review an alleged conflict between Wilson v. State, 298 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974) (holding misjoinder of defendants per se reversible without showing of prejudice), and Quevedo v.…
Authorities Cited
- Zeigler v. State, 402 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 1981)
- Damon v. State, 397 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Robles DEL MAR, Inc. v. Town OF Indian River Shores, 385 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 1980)
- Paul v. State, 385 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 1980)
- Elvis Harris v. State, 414 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Jackson v. Louie L. Wainwright, 298 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Wilson v. State, 298 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Quevedo v. State, 413 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)