DAVID BOWICK, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1996-04-08
No. 94-3666
MINER, WEBSTER and MICKLE, JJ., concur.
671 So. 2d 232 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1996) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Topics
Pipeline Cases Waiver Of Right To Be Present Right To Be Present At Trial

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Pipeline Cases cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

This direct criminal appeal was affirmed without opinion. Appellant has nqw filed a motion for clarification, rehearing, rehearing en banc and/or certification. He asserts that he is entitled to a new trial because, though present in the courtroom during jury selection, he was not present at the bench when peremptoiy challenges were exercised, and there is no evidence that he waived his right to be present. We affirm. Lett v. State, 668 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (on rehearing). However, we grant the request for certification, and certify to the supreme court the same question certified on rehearing in Lett:

DOES THE DECISION IN CONEY [V. STATE, 653 So. 2d 1009 (Fla.1995)] APPLY TO “PIPELINE CASES,” THAT IS, THOSE OF SIMILARLY SITUATED DEFENDANTS WHOSE CASES'WERE PENDING ON DIRECT REVIEW OR NOT YET FINAL DURING THE TIME CONEY WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION BUT PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE OPINION?

In all other respects, appellant’s motion is denied. Appellant’s judgment and sentence are affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

MINER, WEBSTER and MICKLE, JJ., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Garcia v. State, 679 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
    …et. See Diaz v. State, 667 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for resentencing. . Horn v. State, 677 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Gainer v. State, 671 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Berwick v. State, 671 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Bell v. State, 671 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Branch v. State, 671 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Howard v. State, 670 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Lee v. State, 670 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).…
  • Bowick v. State, 684 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 1996)
    …(1995) ] APPLY TO “PIPELINE CASES,” THAT IS, THOSE OF SIMILARLY SITUATED DEFENDANTS WHOSE CASES WERE PENDING ON DIRECT REVIEW OR NOT YET FINAL DURING THE TIME CONEY WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION BUT PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE OPINION? Bowick v. State, 671 So. 2d 232, 233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We answered this question in Boyett v. State, No. 81,971, — So. 2d —[1996 WL 693616] (Fla. Dec. 5,1996). There we wrote: In Coney, we expressly held that “our ruling to…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw