THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
LOUIS NOVA, 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.
Florida reversed the trial court's finding that defendant's jury waiver was involuntary, holding that defendant could not have relied on the State's alleged promise of a twenty-year maximum sentence when he did not learn of that promise until 1982, six years after his 1976 trial.
A defendant cannot establish that a jury waiver was involuntary based on reliance on a representation when the defendant's own sworn testimony establishes he did not learn of that representation until years after the waiver.
[1] A defendant's claim that a jury waiver was involuntary due to reliance on a state representation fails when the defendant's own sworn testimony establishes the defendant…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Since a person cannot be said to have relied on a fact which was unknown to him, the trial court's conclusion that the defendant's waiver was involuntary is without any credible evidentiary support.”
Court's reasoning for reversing the trial court's finding of involuntary waiver
Louis Nova waived his right to a twelve-person jury in a capital case in 1976. At an evidentiary hearing in 1985, Nova claimed the waiver was induced …
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 Waiver cases and more on FLexlaw
DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.
We remanded this case to the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on Nova’s Rule 3.850 claim that his waiver of a twelve-person jury in this capital case was induced by the State’s unfulfilled representation that if convicted, Nova’s maximum sentence would be twenty years in prison. See Nova v. State, 439 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that Nova’s waiver was involuntary, vacated the judgment and sentence, and ordered a new trial. The State appeals, and we reverse.
The defendant’s unretracted sworn admission that it was not until 1982 that he first learned of a “previously unknown fact, to wit, a pre-trial stipulation was made giving the State of Florida the right to proceed to trial in the cause with a six-man jury in exchange to [sic] their stipulating that even if found guilty, defendant could receive no more than twenty (20) years” (emphasis supplied), definitively puts the lie to the defendant’s claim that at his trial six years earlier, he waived his right to a twelve-person jury in reliance on the State’s promise of a twenty-year maximum. Since a person cannot be said to have relied on a fact which was unknown to him, the trial court’s conclusion that the defendant’s waiver was involuntary is without any credible evidentiary support. We therefore reverse the order under review and remand with directions to reinstate the judgment and sentence.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stephens v. State, 478 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…mmary denial of Stephen’s second motion. Successive 3.850 motions are appropriate when they state substantially new legal grounds. McCrae v. State, 437 So. 2d 1388 (Fla.1983); Nova v. State, 439 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), rev’d on other grounds, 462 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Furthermore, a fundamental error, such as the imposition of an unlawful sentence, may be raised for the first time in a Rule 3.850 motion notwithstanding the fact that it could have been raised on direct appeal. Nova, 439 So. 2d…
-
Blackwelder v. State, 489 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…quent appeal of that case in which the court held that since the defendant had not made his bargain in reliance upon the benefit which he now claims that he did not receive, his oral waiver of the requisite number of jurors was valid. State v. Nova, 462 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 3d DCA), petition for review denied, 472 So. 2d 1181 (Fla.1985). It would be a travesty of justice to permit appellant to now repudiate his lawyer’s trial tactic with which he fully concurred and thereby to set aside his five-year-old convict…
-
Jewelcor Jewelers & Distribs., Inc. v. S. Ornamentals, Inc., 499 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…ewelcor’s liabilities were the result, either solely, or in part, of its own wrongful acts. One seeking indemnity must be without fault. Houdaille Industries, Inc. v. Edwards, 374 So. 2d 490 (Fla.1979); Miami Elevator Company v. La Concha Motor Inn, 462 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Since both parties were found to be at fault, indemnification is precluded. Jewelcor also filed a cross-claim against Publix and Madeira for contribution which the trial court denied having determined that Jewelcor intentionally,…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Nova v. State, 439 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Rinker Portland Cement Corp. v. Seidel, 414 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)