IVAN BLANCO, 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.
A 15-year-old defendant was tried as an adult for armed robbery and convicted by jury. The appellate court affirmed his conviction and adult sentence, rejecting his claims that courtroom shackling during jury selection and trial violated his rights and that adult sentencing was improper.
The trial court did not err in shackling the defendant or sentencing him as an adult. The court's obligation to maintain courtroom safety and security outweighs the risk of impairing the defendant's presumption of innocence when proper security measures are implemented. The shackles were properly concealed from the jury, and the trial court correctly applied the statutory criteria for adult sentencing.
[1] A trial court may order a defendant shackled during trial when necessary to maintain courtroom safety and security, provided reasonable efforts are made to conceal the re…
[2] A defendant's threats of escape and violence during trial can justify the use of restraints to ensure courtroom security.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“The court is under an obligation to maintain safety and security in the courtroom. This obligation outweighs, under proper circumstances, the risk that the security measures may impair the defendant's presumption of innocence.”
Establishes the legal standard for permitting courtroom security measures despite potential prejudicial effects on the defendant.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant, a 15-year-old juvenile, was charged with armed robbery. The state successfully moved to try him as an adult. At trial, he was shackled …
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 Courtroom Security cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The state moved to have the defendant, a fifteen-year-old juvenile, tried as an adult for the offense of armed robbery. The court granted the motion and, thereafter, a jury found him guilty as charged. We reject the defendant’s present claims that the trial court erred in ordering him shackled during jury selection and at trial, and in sentencing him as an adult.
The court is under an obligation to maintain safety and security in the courtroom. This obligation outweighs, under proper circumstances, the risk that the security measures may impair the defendant’s presumption of innocence. Diaz v. State, 513 So. 2d 1045, 1046 (Fla.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1079, 108 S.Ct. 1061, 98 L.Ed.2d 1022 (1988) (citing Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 25 L.Ed.2d 353, reh’g denied, 398 U.S. 915, 90 S.Ct. 1684, 26 L.Ed.2d 80 (1970); Dufour v. State, 495 So. 2d 154 (Fla.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1101, 107 S.Ct. 1332, 94 L.Ed.2d 183 (1987)).
In the instant case, the record discloses that the defendant had told corrections officers that he would attempt to escape during the trial and, in the attempt, would batter and inflict bodily injury on persons in the courtroom. Although given ample opportunity, the defendant failed to challenge the prosecutor’s assertions that he had previously been convicted of armed robberies and other crimes of violence and had previously escaped from juvenile detention. When the defendant was ordered shackled by the trial judge, the judge kept the shackles hidden from the jurors by having the defendant seated between his two co-defendants or farthest away from the jury box. Further, objects were placed in front of the table where defendant sat during jury selection and at trial as additional concealment.
Consequently, we find the trial court was justified in requiring the defendant to be shackled, and successfully placed the defendant so as not to prejudice the jury.
Finally, we conclude that the trial court correctly sentenced the juvenile defendant as an adult offender after addressing, in open court, each of the criteria contained in section 39.059(7)(c), Florida Statutes (1991). The trial court reduced its findings to writing and the transcript contained the factual foundation necessary to sentence the defendant as an adult. Pimentel v. State, 442 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), review denied, 450 So. 2d 488 (Fla.1984); Schroeder v. State, 391 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).
Accordingly, defendant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Donnie Jackson v. State, 698 So. 2d 1299 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…endant during trial in Stewart v. State, 549 So. 2d 171, 173-74 (Fla.1989), where the defendant had on a previous occasion slipped off his manacles, and was facing escape charges. The use of shackles on the defendant during trial in Blanco v. State, 603 So. 2d 132, 133 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), was justified by the defendant’s statements to corrections officers “that he would attempt to escape during the trial and, in the attempt, would batter and inflict bodily injury on persons in the courtroom.” Holding a heari…
Authorities Cited (12 total)
- Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (U.S. 1970)
- Dufour v. State, 495 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 1986)
- Henkel v. United States, 479 U.S. 1101 (U.S. 1987)
- Parker v. Illinois, 479 U.S. 1101 (U.S. 1987)
- State v. Casseus, 513 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1987)
- Diaz v. State, 513 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1987)
- Mays v. Texas, 484 U.S. 1079 (U.S. 1988)
- Post v. Ohio, 484 U.S. 1079 (U.S. 1988)
- Pimentel v. State, 442 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Schroeder v. State, 391 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)