WILLIAM ROGER BROWN, APPELLANT,
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 the appellant was not entitled to a new trial because he was present during jury selection and any noncompliance with rules regarding presence during juror challenges was harmless.
Appellant was convicted of aggravated battery and sought review of his conviction and restitution. He claimed he was not physically present during a b…
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 Right To Be Present At Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this direct criminal appeal, appellant seeks review of his aggravated battery conviction, and of the imposition of restitution. Only one issue merits discussion.
Appellant asserts that he is entitled to a new trial because he was not physically present during a bench conference at which a prospective juror was challenged and excused. The record clearly reflects that appellant was in the courtroom during the entire jury selection process. It reflects, further, that appellant consulted with his attorney immediately before the bench conference, and immediately after the bench conference, but before his attorney accepted the jury.
Because this case was tried before release of the opinion in Coney v. State, 653 So. 2d 1009 (Fla.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 315, 183 L.Ed.2d 218 (1995), that decision has no bearing. Lett v. State, 668 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (certifying question of great public importance on motion for rehearing). Even if the rule set out in Coney were applicable to this case, appellant would not be entitled to a new trial because it is clear that noncompliance with that rule was harmless for the reasons discussed in Mejia v. State, 675 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Finally, it is clear that the requirements of Francis v. State, 413 So. 2d 1175 (Fla.1982) (the predecessor to Coney), were satisfied.
AFFIRMED.
WEBSTER, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carmichael v. State, 715 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 1998)…ow can be raised for the first time on appeal or in a motion for new trial. Only the Second District Court of Appeal has concluded that Coney violations cannot be raised for the first time on appeal or in a motion for new trial. See Butler v. State, 676 So. 2d 1034, 1035 (Fla. 1st [*252] DCA 1996) (“The state asserts that an objection was required to preserve this issue for appeal, in accordance with Gibson v. State, 661 So. 2d 288 (Fla.1995). But the court did not suggest in Gibson that it intended to recede…
-
Brower v. State, 684 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…t is clear that violation of the Coney procedure requires reversal for new trial, see Wilson (reversing, absent a knowing voluntary waiver, due to defendant’s not participating at sidebar exercise of challenges — fundamental error); Butler v. State, 676 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (reversing for new trial because defendant’s attorney, not defendant personally, waived defendant’s right to be present in courtroom during jury selection), unless it can be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the error w…1 / 2
-
Wilson v. State, 680 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…ed from this side bar is fatal to appellate review. Where peremptory challenges are used, the trial court’s failure to comply with requirements of Coney constitutes fundamental error which may be raised for the first time on appeal. Butler v. State, 676 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Mejia v. State, 675 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Further, the trial transcript refutes the state’s suggestion that Wilson may have actually been present at sidebar during the selection of the jury.1 Thus we conclude that the…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Coney v. State, 653 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 1995)
- Francis v. State, 413 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 1982)
- Alfredco Lett v. State, 668 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Mejia v. State, 675 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)