CARL BROWN, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed defendant's conviction for cocaine possession and resisting an officer, rejecting his challenge to removal from the courtroom during trial as a proper exercise of judicial discretion to maintain courtroom decorum.
A trial judge may remove a disruptive defendant from the courtroom after jury selection but before testimony begins when the defendant's behavior during voir dire and pretrial proceedings warrants such action to ensure proper trial conduct.
[1] A trial court may remove a disruptive defendant from the courtroom during jury selection and pretrial proceedings when the defendant's behavior necessitates such action t…
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 intelligenceCarl Brown was convicted by jury of possession of cocaine and resisting an officer with violence. During voir dire and pretrial proceedings, Brown eng…
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 Proportionality Of Sanctions cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
We reject each of the arguments raised by the defendant in this appeal from his conviction after a jury trial of possession of cocaine and resisting an officer with violence. His primary point challenges the action of the lower court in removing him from the courtroom for the remainder of the trial after jury selection had been completed but before the testimony had begun. A careful review of the transcript reveals that no error was committed in this regard. Brown’s disruptive behavior during the voir dire and the proceedings prior to the trial itself demonstrates that the trial judge properly exercised the discretion he' possesses to insure a properly conducted trial. In a word, the so-called punishment fit the so-called crime. See Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970); Foster v. Wainwright, 686 F. 2d 1382 (11th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1213, 103 S.Ct. 1209, 75 L.Ed.2d 449 (1983); see Jones v. State, 449 So. 2d 253 (Fla.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 893, 105 S.Ct. 269, 83 L.Ed.2d 205 (1984).
The appellant’s claim that the lower court should have conducted a hearing on his plainly insufficient motion to discharge court-appointed counsel is similarly without merit. See Smelley v. State, 486 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). The remaining point is frivolous.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Joseph v. State, 625 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…nt, cite him for contempt, or remove him from courtroom); Valdes v. State, 626 So. 2d 1316 (Fla.1993) (trial court justified in keeping defendant out of courtroom until satisfied that defendant would not further disrupt proceedings); Brown v. State, 540 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (trial court did not abuse its discretion in removing disruptive defendant from trial).2 Upon the State’s proper confession of error, we reverse the conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm in the commission of a felon…
-
Alfredo Bless *W* v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)…constitutional rights and not following the law. Appellant’s disruptive behavior throughout various parts of the trial demonstrates that the trial judge properly exercised her discretion to have appellant removed from the courtroom. Brown v. State, 540 So. 2d 924, 925 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (“Brown’s disruptive behavior during the voir dire and the proceedings prior to the trial itself demonstrates that the trial judge properly exercised the discretion he possesses to insure a properly conducted trial. In a wor…
Authorities Cited
- Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (U.S. 1970)
- Jones v. State, 449 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 1984)
- Williford v. United States, 469 U.S. 893 (U.S. 1984)
- Smelley v. State, 486 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Foster v. Louie L. Wainwright, 686 F.2d 1382 (11th Cir. 1982)
- Lee v. New York, 459 U.S. 1213 (U.S. 1983)
- Piatkowska v. Emp'rs Ins. of Wausau, 459 U.S. 1213 (U.S. 1983)