ROSE MARIE STANLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Rose Marie Stanley was convicted of burglary and grand theft and sentenced to consecutive five-year terms. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by arbitrarily limiting closing arguments to ten minutes, thereby depriving the defendant of a fair trial.
The trial court abused its discretion by arbitrarily and unreasonably limiting closing argument time to ten minutes, thereby depriving the appellant of the right to a fair trial. Because reversal was required on this ground, the court did not address the other appellate issues.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by arbitrarily and unreasonably limiting the time for closing arguments, thereby depriving a defendant of the right to a fair trial.
[2] A defendant is entitled to a new trial when the trial court errs in refusing to grant the motion based on the defendant's recantation of coerced, false trial testimony de…
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“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
States the first issue raised on appeal regarding the arbitrary limitation of closing argument time.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStanley was tried before a jury with two co-defendants on charges of burglary and grand theft. The jury found her guilty on both counts, and the trial…
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 Sentencing Considerations cases and more on FLexlaw
BLOUNT, URIEL, Jr., Associate Judge.
The appellant was before the court below charged by Information with burglary and grand theft. She was tried before a jury with two co-defendants Willie Preston and Robert Joseph. The jury returned a verdict of guilty to both charges and the trial court adjudicated appellant guilty of burglary and grand theft and sentenced her to a five-year term on each count with the sentences to be served consecutively. Before beginning closing arguments, the trial court limited each of the defendants to ten minutes for closing arguments and the State Attorney two additional minutes. Appellant’s attorney objected and stated that the closing would require more time and the Court responded that he would allow only ten minutes. Appellant’s attorney specifically requested fifteen minutes and as grounds indicated that the three co-defendants all testified with inconsistent statements. The trial court denied the request.
This appeal is taken on three grounds:
ISSUE I
THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN SEVERELY LIMITING THE TIME ALLOWED FOR CLOSING ARGUMENTS WHERE THE CHARGES WERE SERIOUS AND THE ISSUES COMPLEX.
ISSUE II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO GRANT APPELLANT A NEW TRIAL ON THE BASIS OF HER TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT HEARING AND EVI-DENTIARY HEARINGS ON APPELLANT’S AMENDED MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL REGARDING APPELLANT’S RECANTATION OF COERCED, FALSE TRIAL TESTIMONY DETRIMENTAL TO APPELLANT’S DEFENSE AT TRIAL.
ISSUE III
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE APPELLANT’S REFUSAL TO ADMIT GUILT IN DETERMINING THE SENTENCE.
As we must reverse for a new trial because of the arbitrary and unreasonable action of the trial judge in limiting time for closing arguments thus depriving the appellant the right to a fair trial, there is no need to go further in this opinion on the other grounds for appeal. See May v. State, 89 Fla. 78, 103 So. 115 (1925) and Neal v. State, 451 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).
The judgments and sentences for burglary and grand theft are reversed and remanded for new trial.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ORFINGER and SHARP, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Foster v. State, 464 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…e minutes in a first degree murder case, Neal v. State, 451 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), to twenty minutes in an assault with intent to commit murder case, May v. State, supra, to ten minutes in a burglary and grand theft case, Stanley v. State, 453 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), and to five minutes in an illegal possession of intoxicating liquor case. Cooper v. State, 106 Fla. 254, 143 So. 217 (1932). Running through all of these cases is the court’s concern that where human liberty is at stake, as in a…1 / 2
-
Rodriguez v. State, 472 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…xicating liquors); Pittman v. State, 440 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (30 minutes on a charge of resisting arrest with violence); Neal v. State, 451 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (25 minutes on a charge of first degree murder); Stanley v. State, 453 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (10 minutes on a charge of burglary and grand theft); Foster v. State, 464 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (15 minutes on a charge of armed robbery). Citing many of these cases, the Fourth District Court of Appeal recently reverse…
-
Hickey v. State, 484 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…for direct criminal contempt. Defendant’s trial counsel is not the same lawyer who now represents the defendant on appeal. . Neal v. State, 451 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (25 minute time limit in a first degree murder case); Stanley v. State, 453 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (10 minutes on a charge of burglary and grand theft); Rodriguez v. State, 472 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) (15 minute time limit in a burglary case); and most recently, Cain v. State, 481 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (15 min…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- May v. State, 89 Fla. 78 (Fla. 1925)
- Neal v. State, 451 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)