CHARLES GRAY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the appellant’s conviction and sentence but remand with directions to strike the costs assessed without prejudice to the state to apply for a cost assessment with proper hearing and advance notice to appellant. We agree with appellant that the trial court erred in selecting the final juror and an alternate from volunteers among the jury venire, but we find the error harmless, since there is not even a claim that either of these jurors were in any way disqualified from service. We admonish trial judges to strictly observe a random selection process in the selection of prospective jurors from the jury venire.
HERSEY, C.J., and DOWNEY and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cintron v. State, 583 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…ceded by the state, the trial court erred in scoring the defendant's prior conviction for first degree murder as a capital felony upon defendant’s sentencing guidelines scoresheet. See Section 921.001(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1989); Stuart v. State, 536 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Finally, we disagree with the state that the trial court can now depart upward from the sentencing guideline sentence. This is so because here there was a negotiated plea agreement between the parties to limit the sentence. Mor…
-
Major Thornton v. State, 683 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…992). Additionally, Thornton points out that the scoresheet includes ninety-eight points for a prior conviction for first degree homicide. This conviction should not have been scored because a capital offense is not scoreable.1 See Stuart v. State, 536 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Norris v. State, 503 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Davis v. State, 493 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). When the points for victim injury and for the capital felony are subtracted from Thornton’s scoresheet, his score places his…
-
Doak v. State, 671 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…not have been indicated as the primary offense on his seoresheet. He further argues that because that conviction was reflected as the primary offense on his score-sheet, the wrong seoresheet was prepared. We agree. Thus, pursuant to Stuart v. State, 536 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), a category three seoresheet, rather than a category one seoresheet, should be prepared on remand and should reflect the robbery with a deadly weapon conviction as Doak’s primary offense. Id. at 364. The first-degree murder convic…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence