LONNIE JAMES WALKER, 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.
Lonnie James Walker appeals his conviction and life sentence for second-degree murder, raising multiple contentions regarding jury impartiality, voir dire procedures, jury sequestration, and discovery violations. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding all claimed errors to be without merit.
The trial court did not commit reversible error. The court adequately protected the defendant's right to a fair trial through its voir dire and jury management procedures, did not abuse its discretion in making discovery rulings, and committed no error in any other challenged rulings either individually or cumulatively.
[1] A trial court's rulings on voir dire and jury sequestration are reviewed for reversible error, and such rulings are affirmed if the court adequately protected the defenda…
[2] A trial court does not abuse its discretion by making discovery rulings that do not individually or cumulatively amount to reversible error.
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“Our review of the record reveals that the trial court more than adequately protected the right of the defendant to a fair trial and committed no reversible error in any of its rulings herein, either individually or cumulatively.”
Establishes the court's standard for reviewing jury-related claims and rejection of defendant's impartiality arguments.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLonnie James Walker was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The defendant challenged various trial court rulings, in…
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 Sequestration cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant Lonnie James Walker appeals his judgment of conviction and sentence for life imprisonment for the crime of second degree murder. The defendant, through counsel and through a proper person brief, raises a number of contentions on appeal. We have carefully examined these contentions and find them to be without merit. We accordingly affirm.
First, the defendant contends that the trial court erred by failing to conduct a probing voir dire of each individual potential juror outside the presence of the entire panel and by refusing to sequester the jury once it was selected, thereby depriving the defendant of a trial by an impartial jury. The defendant complains here of a number of rulings made by the trial court and claimed as error on appeal, which he argues both individually and cumulatively deprived him of a fair and impartial trial by jury. We cannot agree. Our review of the record reveals that the trial court more than adequately protected the right of the defendant to a fair trial and committed no reversible error in any of its rulings herein, either individually or cumulatively. See Oats v. State, 446 So. 2d 90, 93-94 (Fla.1984); Stone v. State, 378 So. 2d 765, 768 (Fla.1979), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 986, 101 S.Ct. 407, 66 L.Ed.2d 250 (1980); Grimett v. State, 383 So. 2d 698, 699 (Fla. 4th DCA), pet. for review denied, 389 So. 2d 1110 (Fla.1980); Gavin v. State, 259 So. 2d 544, 546-47 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 265 So. 2d 370 (Fla.1972).
Second, the defendant claims that the trial court made a number of rulings which failed to correct certain alleged discovery violations. Once again, the defendant refers us to a number of rulings which it is contended either individually or cumulatively amounted to reversible error. We are again unpersuaded, as the trial court in no way abused its discretion in making any of its discovery rulings. See Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771, 774-75 (Fla.1971); State v. Del Gaudio, 445 So. 2d 605, 607-11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Jones v. State, 360 So. 2d 1293, 1296-97 (Fla.3d DCA 1978).
Third, the defendant, in his proper person brief and through counsel in his reply brief, has. raised numerous other points which we have examined. None of them merit a reversal in this case and must therefore be rejected.
Finally, in view of our affirmance on the main appeal, it is unnecessary for us to consider the state’s cross appeal. Bour v. Sherman, 113 Fla. 730, 152 So. 3 (1934). In this connection, we reject the state’s invitation for us to issue an advisory opinion on its cross appeal so as to prevent similar errors from occurring in other cases unrelated to the instant case. Plainly, we have no such advisory opinion authority, as “[i]t is a long-standing rule of appellate jurisprudence that the court will not undertake to resolve issues which, though of interest to the bench and bar, are not dis-positive of the particular case before the court.” Marion County Hospital District v. Akins, 435 So. 2d 272, 273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). We do not, as urged, read Diecidue v. State, 119 So. 2d 803 (Fla.2d DCA 1960), to stand for a contrary proposition, but to the extent that it does, we decline to follow it.
The final judgment of conviction and sentence under review is in all respects
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Page v. State, 677 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…the second sentence of section 924.07(l)(d), Florida Statutes (1995). Were we to comply with that provision in a ease such as this, we would clearly be rendering what amounted to nothing more than an advisory opinion. See generally Walker v. State, 459 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (declining to consider state’s cross-appeal when result would be advisory opinion), review denied, 469 So. 2d 750 (Fla.1985). We are of the view that, to the extent the statute purports to dictate to the courts what issues must be…
-
Orchid Island Props., Inc. v. W.G. Mills, 889 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…we do not have jurisdiction to review the order enforcing the MSA. This court does not provide advisory opinions on how to litigate or perfect an appeal. Marion County Hosp. Dist. v. Akins, 435 So. 2d 272, 273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Walker v. State, 459 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). We are confined to ruling on the matters before us. The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. TAYLOR, J., concurs. GROSS, J., concurs specially with opinion.…
-
Ramos v. State, 469 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…uestion[s] of law” which the state may review by cross-appeal under section 927.07(4) to be confined only to evidentiary issues and the like which may arise in a new trial if the defendant succeeds in securing one on his appeal. Cf. Walker v. State, 459 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (issues on state’s cross-appeal not considered since conviction affirmed). In other words, I would have granted the motion to dismiss the cross-appeal which the court earlier denied. I must also express my disagreement with the b…
Authorities Cited (15 total)
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- State v. del Gaudio, 445 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Stone v. State, 378 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 1979)
- Sonnie Boy Oats, Jr. v. State, 446 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1984)
- Dankert v. Georgia, 449 U.S. 986 (U.S. 1980)
- Jewell v. United States, 449 U.S. 986 (U.S. 1980)
- Blowers v. Williams, 360 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Jones v. State, 360 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Gavin v. State, 259 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Marion Cnty. Hosp. Dist. v. The Honorable Elwyn M. Akins, 435 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)