SANTIAGO SANCHEZ, 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.
Santiago Sanchez was convicted of trafficking in cocaine and possession of cannabis. The jury returned verdicts on both the greater offense (trafficking) and the lesser included offense (possession) on count two. The appellate court affirmed the conviction and affirmed the sentence with a modification correcting a clerical error.
The dual verdicts do not require a retrial. The conviction for trafficking in cocaine is affirmed because the jury clearly intended to find guilt on the greater offense, making the verdict on the lesser offense merely surplusage. The sentence is affirmed as modified by striking the erroneous "one day" from the sentencing order.
[1] Objections to a jury verdict must be raised before the jury is discharged to be preserved for appeal.
[2] A trial court may allow a jury to further deliberate to correct a mistaken verdict if an objection is timely raised before discharge.
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“Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.570 requires that objections to verdicts be raised before the jury is discharged.”
Establishes the procedural requirement that objections must be timely, before jury discharge, or they are waived.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSanchez was charged with trafficking in cocaine (count two) and possession of cannabis. The jury received instructions about the lesser included offen…
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 Ambiguous Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Sanchez appeals his conviction for trafficking in cocaine and his sentence on a charge of possession of cannabis. We affirm the conviction. We also affirm the sentence, with a modification.
Sanchez was charged in count two of the information with trafficking in cocaine.
The jury was instructed that “if you decide that [trafficking in cocaine] has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, you will next need to decide if the defendant is guilty of [the] lesser included crime” of possession of cocaine.
The jury returned one verdict form finding Sanchez guilty of trafficking in cocaine as charged in count two of the information and another verdict form finding him guilty of the lesser included offense of possession of cocaine.
The jury was polled, acceded in the verdict and was discharged. Prior to discharge, defense counsel did not object to the verdict, nor did he request that the jury deliberate further to correct the mistake. After the jury was discharged, defendant’s counsel expressed concern over the fact that the jury had returned verdicts on both the greater and the lesser included offenses. He asked for time to research the problem and, a few days later, moved to recall the jury,, which motion was denied. The court adjudicated Sanchez only on the greater offense, trafficking in cocaine.
Sanchez’ contention is that the verdicts on count two are inherently ambiguous and that, therefore, a retrial is mandated. We disagree.
First, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.570 requires that objections to verdicts be raised before the jury is discharged. See also Whilden v. State, 301 So. 2d 35, 36 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974).
A timely objection and request for cure would have allowed the trial court to cause the jury to further deliberate in order to correct the mistaken verdict. See Griffin v. State, 414 So. 2d 1025, 1028-29 (Fla.1982) (court may send a jury back for further deliberation to correct a mistaken verdict).
Cf. Masters v. State, 344 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA) (not error to recall the jury immediately after discharge to correct their entering two verdicts on one count), cert. denied, 352 So. 2d 173 (Fla.1977).
The proper procedure would have been to object to the verdict prior to discharge and have the jury correct it. See Dixon v. State, 437 N.E. 2d 1318 (Ind.1982); see also People v. Roberts, 112 A.D.2d 18, 490 N.Y.S.2d 381 (App.Div.1985) (failure to protest verdict prior to discharge of jury waives the objection).
Second, even if the issue were properly preserved, a review of the record clearly demonstrates that the jury intended to find Sanchez guilty of the greater offense.
The evidence unquestionably supports a finding of guilt on the greater offense since it was uncontradicted that the amount of cocaine exceeded twenty-eight grams.1 Additionally, the court’s instructions required the jury to consider guilt on the greater offense first.
Having found guilt on the greater offense, it was of course unnecessary for them to proceed any further.2 Therefore, the verdict on the lesser offense is merely surplusage. Dixon; State v. Hill, 674 P. 2d 96 (Utah 1983); see also People v. Albino, 104 A.D.2d 317, 478 N.Y.S.2d 908 (App.Div.1984), affirmed, 65 N.Y.2d 843, 493 N.Y.S.2d 305, 482 N.E. 2d 1221 (1985).
Accordingly, the conviction for trafficking in cocaine is affirmed.
Sanchez was charged with, and found guilty of, possession of a misdemean-or amount of cannabis. While the trial court announced a sentence of one year on that charge, the written order reflects a sentence of one year and one day. The state has conceded that a clerical error occurred. We, therefore, strike the “one day” portion of the sentencing order and affirm the order as modified.
Conviction affirmed, sentence affirmed as modified.
. Section 893.135(l)(b), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1982) makes the possession of 28 grams or more of cocaine a felony of the first degree known as trafficking in cocaine. The uncontradicted evidence shows that Sanchez was in possession of 39.7 grams of cocaine.
. The extraneous verdict could have been prevented in the first instance by instructions and a verdict form which made this point clear to the jury.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wolfram v. State, 568 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…he recording of a verdict shall affect its validity unless the defendant was in fact prejudiced by such irregularity. The proper procedure is to object to the verdict prior to discharge of the jury so that the jury may correct it. Sanchez v. State, 490 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). In the instant case, the record does not reflect that the state moved to correct the judgment when it recognized the error. After reading the verdict, the trial court announced that adjudication would be made at the sentencing h…
-
Johnson v. State, 164 So. 3d 794 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…t think once they’ve selected a verdict and a finding that everybody has agreed to[,] that we cannot ask them to go back and reach a different verdict.” But after giving the parties time to research the issue, the trial court cited Sanchez v. State, 490 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), and decided not to reinstruct the jury because anomalies of this sort have been viewed by appellate courts in the past as “surplus-age.” The court denied Mr. Johnson’s motion for mistrial and his request to send the jury back for…
-
James v. State, 150 So. 3d 864 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…still in court.” Denmark v. State, 656 So. 2d 166, 167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); see Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.570. This is because a timely objection allows the trial court to have the jury further consider the issue and correct any mistake. Sanchez v. State, 490 So. 2d 198, 199 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Here, the defendant failed to preserve the issue. He did not object when the trial court had the opportunity to allow the jury to further consider the issue. We are also persuaded by the fact that the only difference in the…
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
- Griffin v. State, 414 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 1982)
- Masters v. State, 344 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Whilden v. State, 301 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)