ANTHONY LOPEZ, 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.
Anthony Lopez appeals his conviction for robbery with a firearm and habitual violent felony offender sentence, challenging the trial court's failure to ensure he knowingly waived his right to be present during jury selection. The court affirmed the conviction but remanded to correct a sentencing document error and certified an unresolved issue to the Florida Supreme Court regarding the procedural requirements for raising unpreserved Coney waiver claims.
The court affirmed Lopez's conviction because the failure to obtain a Coney waiver cannot be raised on direct appeal without an objection made at trial, and the proper vehicle to raise this unpreserved error is through postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The court remanded for correction of the sentencing document to reflect the fifteen-year minimum mandatory term.
[1] A defendant's right to be present at the bench during the exercise of pretrial juror challenges can be waived.
[2] Failure to obtain an affirmative waiver from a defendant for their presence at the bench during pretrial juror challenges cannot be raised on direct appeal without an obj…
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“failure to obtain a Coney waiver cannot be raised on direct appeal without an objection made on the same grounds at trial”
Establishes the procedural requirement that Coney issues must be preserved at trial through defense objection in order to be reviewable on appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLopez was tried for robbery with a firearm on September 11-12, 1995. The trial occurred five months after the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Cone…
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 Appeal From Conviction And Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Anthony Lopez appeals the final judgment and sentence after he was adjudicated guilty of robbery with a firearm and sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender. We affirm, but remand to correct a scrivener’s error. Lopez contends that he is entitled to a new trial based on the trial court’s failure to determine if he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to be present at the bench where pretrial juror challenges were exercised in accordance with Coney v. State, 653 So. 2d 1009 (Fla.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 921, 116 S.Ct. 315, 133 L.Ed.2d 218 (1995). Lopez was tried on September 11 and 12, 1995, five months after the supreme court denied rehearing in Coney; therefore, Coney is applicable to this case. See Boyett v. State, 688 So. 2d 308, 310 (Fla.1996). The record supports Lopez’s contention; however, defense counsel did not object to' his absence. This court has determined that “failure to obtain a Coney waiver cannot be raised on direct appeal without an objection made on the same grounds at trial.” Lee v. State, 695 So. 2d 1314, 1315 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (proper vehicle to raise this unpreserved error is by posteonvietion relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850).
We, therefore, affirm Lopez’s judgment and sentence. We acknowledge interdistrict conflict1 on this issue and certify to the Florida Supreme Court the same question previously certified in Lee, 695 So. 2d at 1315:
IF A CONEY ISSUE IS NOT PRESERVED AT TRIAL, MUST A PRISONER FILE A POSTCONVICTION MOTION ALLEGING UNDER OATH THAT HE OR SHE WOULD NOT HAVE EXERCISED PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES IN THE SAME MANNER AS HIS OR HER ATTORNEY?
Finally, we note that the sentencing form in the record does not indicate that Lopez was to receive a fifteen-year minimum mandatory term as part of his habitual violent felony offender life sentence. Accordingly, we remand with instructions to the trial court to correct the written sentence to reflect the fifteen-year minimum mandatory provision as imposed by the trial court at sentencing. See Williams v. State, 654 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).
Affirmed. Remanded to the trial court to correct the written sentence.
PARKER, C.J., and PATTERSON and ' BLUE, JJ., concur. . See Butler v. State, 676 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Wilson v. State, 680 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), dismissed, 693 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1997); Brower v. State, 684 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), review granted, 694 So. 2d 739 (Fla.1997).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lopez v. State, 718 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 1998)…SHAW, Justice. We have for review Lopez v. State, 707 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), based on conflict with Brower v. State, 684 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We approve the result in Lopez as explained below. Anthony Lopez was charged with robbery with a f…
-
LEE v. State, 744 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…er to make a facially sufficient claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on these grounds, the defendant would need to allege that he or she would not have exercised the peremptory challenges in the same manner as counsel did. See Lopez v. State, 707 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (certifying to supreme court question of whether a prisoner must file a postconviction motion alleging under oath that he or she would not have exercised peremptory challenges in the same manner as his or her attorney in order to…
Authorities Cited
- Coney v. State, 653 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 1995)
- Boyett v. State, 688 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 1996)
- Brower v. State, 684 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Wilson v. State, 680 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- LEE v. State, 695 So. 2d 1314 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Brown v. State, 676 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Bruno v. Mele, 516 U.S. 921 (U.S. 1995)
- Adams v. Coombe, 516 U.S. 921 (U.S. 1995)
- Williams v. State, 654 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)