FRANK GOLDEN, JR., 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.
Frank Golden, Jr. appealed his convictions for burglary, grand theft, and dealing in stolen property. The Florida appellate court affirmed the burglary and dealing in stolen property convictions but reversed and remanded the grand theft conviction due to improper multiple adjudications for offenses that were part of one scheme.
The court found no reversible error regarding Golden's absence from sidebar conferences because the reconstructed record showed his defense counsel consulted with him during peremptory challenges, giving him meaningful participation in jury selection. The court affirmed the dealing in stolen property conviction but reversed the grand theft conviction because separate adjudications for offenses comprising one scheme violated precedent, and remanded for resentencing.
[1] A defendant's absence from sidebar conferences during the exercise of peremptory jury challenges constitutes reversible error unless the trial court makes an affirmative…
[2] A trial court's failure to ensure a defendant's presence or waiver at sidebar conferences during jury selection may be deemed harmless error if the record demonstrates th…
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“Coney error is harmless where it is apparent from the record that the defendant consulted with counsel prior to the exercise of peremptory challenges and, thus, had the opportunity to participate in a meaningful way in the selection of the jury”
Establishes the harmless error standard for a defendant's absence from sidebar during peremptory challenges
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGolden was convicted of burglary of a dwelling, grand theft, and dealing in stolen property. During jury selection, Golden was absent from sidebar con…
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 Scheme Or Course Of Conduct cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION, MOTION FOR REHEARING, MOTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC AND MOTION TO CERTIFY
MICKLE, Judge.
On appellant’s motion for clarification, we withdraw our original opinion of November 19, 1996, and substitute the following opinion in its stead. The requests for rehearing and certification are otherwise denied.
Frank Golden, Jr., challenges his convictions and sentences for burglary of a dwelling, grand theft, and dealing in stolen property. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand as set forth below.
As appellant’s first issue, he asserts that his absence from the sidebar conferences when peremptory challenges to the jury were exercised was reversible error where the trial court failed to make an affirmative determination as to whether he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his presence at sidebar, or as to whether he voluntarily and intelligently ratified the jury chosen, as required by Coney v. State, 653 So. 2d 1009 (Fla.1995), cert, denied, — U.S. —, 116 S.Ct. 315, 133 L.Ed.2d 218 (1995). The trial transcript reflects that appellant was in the courtroom during voir dire proceedings and that several bench conferences took place. However, because it was not apparent from the transcript whether appellant was physically present at the bench conferences, or whether he conferred with counsel when peremptory challenges were exercised, jurisdiction was relinquished in this cause for the purpose of supplementation of the record with a reconstruction of the bench conference proceedings. The reconstructed record filed with this court consists of affidavits executed by defense counsel and the prosecutor, and an order entered by the trial judge based upon these affidavits. In the order, the trial judge found that appellant was not present at sidebar for the exercise of peremptory challenges, but that, during the course of peremptory challenges, defense counsel consulted with appellant about which jurors would be challenged. Applying this court’s harmless error analysis espoused in Mejia v. State, 675 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)(Coney error is harmless where it is apparent from the record that the defendant consulted with counsel prior to the exercise of peremptory challenges and, thus, had the opportunity to participate in a meaningful way in the selection of the jury), we conclude that no reversible error has been demonstrated.
As to appellant’s second issue, the state concedes error in the imposition of separate adjudications of guilt both-for grand theft and dealing in stolen property where the charging document and record evidence reflect that the offenses were part of one scheme or course of conduct. We affirm the conviction for dealing in stolen property, but vacate the conviction for grand theft, and remand for correction of the sentence to reflect that the grand theft conviction is vacated. See Schummer v. State, 657 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Parnell v. State, 661 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Gray v. State, 611 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
ALLEN and MINER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smiley v. State, 704 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…than harmless technical error in the failure to make further inquiry during the jury selection proceedings. Smiley was not prejudiced. Kellar v. State, 690 So. 2d 630, 631 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. den., 697 So. 2d 511 [*194] (Fla.1997); Golden v. State, 688 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 1st DCA) (granting mot. for clarif.), rev. den., 698 So. 2d 543 (Fla.1997); Williams v. State, 687 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 3d DCA) (trial court’s failure to obtain a personal waiver of the defendant’s right to be present at a sidebar conference where…
-
Wendall Goney, Sr. v. State, 691 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…been made, and the trial court’s later certification on the record of these events, satisfied the Melendez ratification or acquiescence exception to Coney. These circumstances could also be viewed as constituting harmless error. See Golden v. State, 688 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). [*1136] Finally, it could also be premised that Go-ney was in fact “present” at the bench conferences in a meaningful and realistic way, because Goney was at all times physically present in the courtroom during the jury selectio…
-
Blackmon v. State, 58 So. 3d 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…lowed Ridley in Alexander v. State, 470 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), and we have continued to adhere to that decision. See, e.g., Drew v. State, 861 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Day v. State, 793 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Golden v. State, 688 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Schummer v. State, 657 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Gray v. State, 611 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Day v. State, 531 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). In Alexander, the defendant was charged with grand theft of an outboard m…
Previewing 3 of 8 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)
- Mejia v. State, 675 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Cliff Parnell v. State, 661 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Kennis Lee Schummer v. State, 657 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Gray v. State, 611 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)