BOBBI JO MCLEOD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
BOBBI JO MCLEOD, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
576 So. 2d 1381
Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1991)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the appellant’s judgments and sentences but strike court costs without prejudice to the state to seek reimposition after proper notice and opportunity to be heard.
SCHOONOVER, C.J., and CAMPBELL and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
O'Hara v. State, 642 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…to ensure a fair and impartial jury. A trial court abuses its discretion when the imposition of unreason [*594] able time limitations or limitations on the number of questions results in the loss of this fundamental right. Compare Zitnick v. State, 576 So. 2d 1381 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); James v. State, 575 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Pineda v. State, 571 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Gosha v. State, 534 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Williams v. State, 424 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) with Valdez v. State,…
-
Andros Domonic Miller v. State, 785 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…voir dire is to ensure a fair and impartial jury. A trial court abuses its discretion when the imposition of unreasonable time limitations or limitations on the number of questions results in the loss of this fundamental right.”); Zitnick v. State, 576 So. 2d 1381-82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (on confession of error); Pineda v. State, 571 So. 2d 105, 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Gosha v. State, 534 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Similarly, the trial court may not deny defense counsel an opportunity to question jurors ind…