TOMMY WAYNE THOMAS, 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.
Thomas was convicted of burglary and criminal mischief after his wallet was found at the scene of a home break-in. On appeal, he challenged the trial court's comments about fingerprint evidence during voir dire as prejudicial, but the appellate court affirmed his conviction, finding the issue waived due to lack of timely objection and any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
The defendant waived appellate review by failing to lodge a timely objection to the trial court's comments at trial. Assuming arguendo that the comments constituted error, any such error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
[1] An issue is not preserved for appellate review if the defendant fails to object to the allegedly prejudicial comments made by the trial court during voir dire.
[2] A defendant waives the right to appellate review of alleged errors by failing to timely object to them during trial.
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 intelligence“In order to raise an issue on appeal the issue must have been properly preserved for appellate review. In order to preserve an issue for appellate review there must be an objection in the trial court which raises the specific grounds and legal argument upon which the objection is based.”
Establishes the requirement for timely objection to preserve issues for appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn October 6, 1993, a homeowner found a man (Thomas) standing next to a car in front of her house as her alarm was sounding. Thomas claimed he was a p…
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 Fingerprint Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
BARKDULL, Judge.
Defendant appeals his conviction, after trial by jury, on counts of burglary and criminal mischief.
On October 6, 1993, as victim approached her home, she noticed a man standing next to a car parked in front of her house and that her home’s alarm system was sounding. Victim got out of her car and asked the man who he was and what he was doing. The man responded that he was Tommy John Thomas, that he was a painter, that he was in the neighborhood looking for work, that he had been driving by the house when he heard the alarm, and, that he had seen two black men running away from the house. The victim went into the house, saw that someone had damaged a component of the alarm system, got a gun, a piece of paper and a pencil, and went back outside to talk to Thomas. The victim gave Thomas the paper and he wrote down his name, address and telephone number. Thomas told the victim to call if he could be of any further help and left. The victim went back inside and while looking around the house found a wallet on the floor, next to the damaged alarm component. The wallet contained a picture ID card of Tommy Thomas. The victim called her husband who in turn called the police. The victim told the police about Thomas and gave the police Thomas’ wallet. The police went to Thomas’ home to question him. Thomas told the police that his wallet had been stolen two days before. The wallet contained a picture ID card which had been issued to Thomas one day before. Thomas was arrested and charged with burglary and criminal mischief. There were no witnesses to the actual break in and the police gathered no other evidence, except for the wallet, from the scene.
During voir dire the state attorney discussed circumstantial evidence with the jury. At one point the trial court restated a point made by the state attorney regarding the lack of fingerprint evidence and at another point the trial court made an observation regarding fingerprint evidence in general. The trial court was careful to instruct the jury pool that it was not attempting to influence them in any way and that, if chosen to serve as jurors, they must determine the issues based on the evidence and that they must each individually weigh the evidence presented or lack thereof in reaching a verdict.
A jury was empaneled and defendant was found guilty as charged. Defendant, by this appeal, argues that the trial court’s observations, regarding fingerprint evidence, were so improper and prejudicial that defendant was denied the right to a fair trial. Specifically defendant argues that the trial court’s comments were the equivalent of an instruction to the jury to reject defendant’s lack of evidence defense. Further, defendant argues that the trial court’s comments were so erroneous that they amounted to per se fundamental error and thus this court must reverse.
It is well settled that in order to raise an issue on appeal the issue must have been properly preserved for appellate review. In order to preserve an issue for appellate review there must be an objection in the trial court which raises the specific grounds and legal argument upon which the objection is based. See and compare Occhicone v. State, 570 So. 2d 902 (Fla.1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 938, 111 S.Ct. 2067, 114 L.Ed.2d 471 (1991); Bertolotti v. State, 565 So. 2d 1343 (Fla.), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1031, 110 S.Ct. 3296, 111 L.Ed.2d 804 (1990); Ross v. State, 386 So. 2d 1191 (Fla.1980). In the instant action defendant failed to object to the allegedly prejudicial comments and did not timely move for a mistrial. Defendant’s failure to object is strong indicia that at the time and under the circumstances defendant did not regard the complained of error to be harmful or prejudicial. Ray v. State, 403 So. 2d 956, 960 (Fla.1981). By failing to timely object defendant has waived the right to appellate review of any alleged error. See Occhicone; Bertolotti; Ray; Ross.
Assuming, which we do not, that the trial court’s comments were error, we hold that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See and compare Wyatt v. State, 641 So. 2d 1336 (Fla.1994); State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986); Ross.
Accordingly defendant’s convictions for burglary and criminal mischief are in all respects affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jovan Howard v. State, 27 So. 3d 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…r the jury understood that, in real life, DNA evidence is not processed in a day. Because Howard made no objection to the comments below, Howard’s assertion that the comments constituted reversible error may not be raised on appeal. Thomas v. State, 645 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (holding that in order to raise prejudicial comments of trial court on appeal, defendant must object to comments when made and move for a mistrial). Finally, Howard argues the trial court failed to properly swear in the jury. As…
-
Harris v. State, 709 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Finney v. State, 660 So. 2d 674 (Fla.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1096, 116 S.Ct. 823, 133 L.Ed.2d 766 (1996); Duest v. State, 462 So. 2d 446 (Fla.1985); Thomas v. State, 645 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).…
-
Taylor v. State, 789 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…had plead guilty himself, see Moore v. State, 701 So. 2d 545 (Fla.1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1083, 118 S.Ct. 1536, 140 L.Ed.2d 685 (1998); (b) the defendant’s objection below was not based on the legal ground asserted on appeal, Thomas v. State, 645 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); and (c) the admission of the written statement was plainly cumulative and thus harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Goodwin v. State, 751 So. 2d 537 (Fla.1999); State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986); Moss v. State, 664 So.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- RAY v. State, 403 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1981)
- Occhicone v. State, 570 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 1990)
- Ross v. State, 386 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 1980)
- Wyatt v. State, 641 So. 2d 1336 (Fla. 1994)
- Singh v. United States, 500 U.S. 938 (U.S. 1991)
- Bertolotti v. State, 565 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 1990)
- Goree v. United States, 497 U.S. 1031 (U.S. 1990)