HENRY WILLIAMS AND JAMES BERNARD COPELAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
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.
The court held that consolidating trials on the date of trial, without allowing reasonable preparation time, denies due process rights and is prejudicial.
[1] A trial court errs in consolidating trials on the date of trial over objection, thereby denying defendants a reasonable opportunity to prepare a defense for a joint trial…
[2] When consolidation of trials occurs on the date of trial, prejudice to the defendants is presumed.
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 intelligenceAppellants Williams and Copeland were charged with separate offenses. On the day of jury selection, the state moved to consolidate their trials, which…
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 Motion To Consolidate cases and more on FLexlaw
[*541] PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from judgments and sentences following jury trial. Appellants contend, inter alia, that the trial court erred in denying a motion to sever their trials when a motion to consolidate was filed and granted on the date of trial.1
On August 22, 1990, appellant Williams was charged by information with armed robbery, grand theft, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and aggravated assault. Appellant Copeland was charged by information with armed robbery, grand theft, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
On December 3, 1990, the day the jury was selected, the State filed motions to consolidate appellants’ trials. The trial court granted, over objection, the motions. Thereafter, appellant Copeland filed a motion for severance pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.152, which was denied. A renewed motion, filed December 4, 1990, joined in by appellant Williams, was denied. On December 5,1990, the jury found appellants guilty of one count each of armed robbery and theft.
In Brown v. State, 424 So. 2d 950, 954 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), this court held:
When the period between consolidation and trial is so short that the defendant is denied a reasonable opportunity to prepare a defense for a joint trial, such a defendant has clearly been prejudiced by the denial of substantial procedural rights. In this case, it seems patent that the two-day period between consolidation and trial prejudiced appellants by denying them their due process rights to have a reasonable opportunity to prepare for trial.
The instant motion for consolidation was filed on the date of trial. Therefore, appellants were denied a reasonable opportunity to prepare a defense for a joint trial. Under such circumstances, prejudice is assumed. Oliver v. State, 569 So. 2d 1332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).
Accordingly, we reverse the appellants’ judgment and sentences and remand for new trials.
BOOTH, BARFIELD and ALLEN, JJ., concur. . Due to our resolution of this issue, we decline to reach appellants’ other contentions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 424 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Oliver v. State, 569 So. 2d 1332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)