ROOSEVELT JONES, 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 reversed a first-degree murder conviction because the defendant's waiver of a twelve-person jury, made only by counsel after the state waived the death penalty, was legally insufficient.
A defendant's waiver of a twelve-person jury in a first-degree murder case effected solely by counsel after the state waives the death penalty is legally insufficient.
[1] A defendant's waiver of a twelve-person jury requirement in a first-degree murder case must be made by the defendant personally and is not effective when made only by cou…
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“his purported waiver of a twelve-person jury effected only by his counsel after the state waived the death penalty, was legally insufficient”
The court's statement of the ground for reversal, explaining why the jury waiver was defective.
Roosevelt Jones was convicted of first degree murder. His counsel agreed to a jury of six after the prosecutor waived the death penalty, but Jones him…
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
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
On this appeal from the denial of his motion to vacate under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850, see Dumas v. State, 439 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), pet. for review denied, 462 So. 2d 1105 (Fla.1985); Nova v. State, 439 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), pet. for review denied, 472 So. 2d 1181 (Fla.1985), we set aside Jones’s first degree murder conviction, and order a new trial on the ground, as held in Rodriguez-Acosta v. State, 548 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) and Griffith v. State, 548 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), that his purported waiver of a twelve-person jury effected only by his counsel after the state waived the death penalty,1 was legally insufficient.
Reversed for a new trial.2
. The "waiver" is reflected in the record only by the following colloquy prior to jury selection:
MR. SOHN: [Defense counsel] It’s my understanding the State is waiving the death penalty. We have agreed to a jury of six. MR. NORRIS: [Prosecutor] That’s correct, Judge.
. As indicated in Griffith at note 2, the order setting this case for en banc hearing is discharged and the following question is certified to the supreme court as one of great public importance:
Whether a twelve-person jury is required in a first degree murder case in which the prosecution waives the death penalty?
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
State v. Griffith, 561 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 1990)…McDonald, justice. We have for review Griffith v. State, 548 So. 2d 244, 246 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), in which the district court certified the following question as one of great public importance: Whether a twelve-person jury is required in a first degree murder case in which the prosecution waives the death penalty?…
-
Rodriguez-Acosta v. State, 548 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…v. State, 85 Fla. 197, 95 So. 668 (1923). Gabriel Rodriguez-Acosta’s convictions are therefore reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for a new trial.1 Reversed and remanded with directions. . As indicated in Griffith v. State, 548 So. 2d 244, n. 2 (Fla 3d DCA 1989), the order setting this case for en banc hearing is discharged and the following question is certified to the supreme court as one of great public importance: Whether a twelve-person jury is required in a first degree murder…
-
Griffith v. State, 548 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…ttorney,1 and, based upon and as an aspect of that agreement, a six, rather than a twelve-person jury, was selected and considered the cause. We hold, as we do today in Rodriguez-Acosta v. State, 548 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) and Jones v. State, 548 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), that the defen [*246] dant’s admitted failure personally to forego the twelve-person jury required by section 913.10, Florida Statutes (1985) and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.270 for the trial of capital crimes in Florida…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dumas v. State, 439 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Nova v. State, 439 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Dumas v. State, 462 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 1985)
- Rodriguez-Acosta v. State, 548 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Griffith v. State, 548 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)