TIMOTHY LEE, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Timothy Lee appealed his conviction, claiming he was denied his right to be present at the bench during jury selection. The Florida Supreme Court held that while Coney v. State established such a right, Lee failed to timely preserve the issue at trial, and therefore his claim was not cognizable on appeal.
The Florida Supreme Court held that while Coney established a defendant's right to be present at the bench during juror challenges, this right must be timely raised at trial to be cognizable on appeal. Lee's failure to express interest in being present at the bench, despite having notice of the Coney decision months earlier, constituted a failure to preserve the issue for appellate review.
[1] A defendant must timely raise the issue of their absence from the bench during pretrial juror challenges to preserve the claim for review.
[2] A defendant's right to be present at the bench during pretrial juror challenges, as established in Coney v. …
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“under our then-current rules of procedure, the defendant had a right to be present at the bench when pretrial juror challenges were exercised”
Establishes that Coney v. State had recognized this constitutional or procedural right
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTimothy Lee was charged with multiple offenses including escape, battery on a law enforcement officer, obstruction of an officer, and drug possession.…
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 Jury Selection cases and more on FLexlaw
SHAW, Justice.
We have for review Lee v. State, 695 So. 2d 1314 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), based on conflict with Brower v. State, 684 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), quashed, 713 So. 2d 1005 (Fla.1998). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We approve the result in Lee as explained below.
Timothy Lee was charged with the following offenses: escape while being transported, battery on a law enforcement officer, obstructing an officer with violence, possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, and two counts of possession of cocaine. During voir dire on November 15, 1995, defense counsel exercised several juror challenges at the bench. Although Lee was present in the courtroom, the record fails to show that he was at the bench during the juror challenges. He was convicted as charged and the district court affirmed.1 He now claims that he is entitled to a new trial because he was not present at the bench when the jury was selected. We disagree.
This Court in Coney v. State, 653 So. 2d 1009, 1013 (Fla.1995), ruled that under our then-current rules of procedure, the defendant had a right to be present at the bench when pretrial juror challenges were exercised.2 We have now held in Carmichael v. State, 715 So. 2d 247 (Fla.1998), that the defendant must timely raise this issue. In the present case, although Lee was present in the courtroom when the jury was selected, the record fails to show that either he or his lawyer expressed any interest in Lee being present at the bench. We note that our decision in Coney had been issued months earlier, giving Lee ample notice of the existence of this right. We find no error. We approve the result in Lee as explained above.3
It is so ordered.
OVERTON, KOGAN and WELLS, JJ., concur. PARIENTE, J., concurs in result only with an opinion.
HARDING, C.J., dissents with an opinion, in which ANSTEAD, J., concurs.
. The district court recognized conflict with other district courts that have held a Coney error to be fundamental error. The district court certified the following question:
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?
Lee, 695 So. 2d at 1315. This question is rendered moot by our decision in Carmichael, wherein we held that in order to be cognizable on review a Coney claim must be timely raised with the trial court.
. Coney has since been superseded. See Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 685 So. 2d 1253, 1254 n. 2 (Fla.1996) ("This amendment supersedes Coney v. State, 653 So. 2d 1009 (Fla.1995).). Coney is applicable only to those cases falling within a narrow window — i.e., where jury selection took place after April 27, 1995 (the date Coney became final), and before January 1, 1997 (the date the corrective amendment to rule 3.180 became effective). See State v. Mejia, 696 So. 2d 339 (Fla.1997); Amendments.
. We decline to address the other issues raised by Lee.
PARIENTE, Justice,
concurring in result only.
I concur in the result only for the reasons stated in my concurrence in Carmichael v. State, 715 So. 2d 247 (Fla.1998). I add the caveat that an affirmance does not preclude the defendant from raising this issue by way of postconviction relief as suggested by Judge Altenbernd in his concurrence in Hill v. State, 696 So. 2d 798, 800 (Fla. 2d DCA), decision approved, 700 So. 2d 646 (Fla.1997).
HARDING, Chief Justice,
dissenting:
I dissent for reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in State v. Ellis, No. 91,154, — So. 2d — (Fla. July 9, 1998).
ANSTEAD, J., concurs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
LEE v. State, 744 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…rect appeal, but this court found that the error was not preserved because neither Lee nor his counsel lodged an objection or requested that Lee be present during the bench conferences. See Lee v. State, 695 So. 2d 1314 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), approved, 713 So. 2d 1003 (Fla.1998). This court held that the unpreserved error could only be raised in a postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. See id. Lee has now done so. In addition to the above allegations, Lee also states that he would have…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Coney v. State, 653 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 1995)
- Amendments TO THE Florida Rules OF Criminal Procedure, 685 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 1996)
- Carmichael v. State, 715 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 1998)
- State v. Mejia, 696 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1997)
- Brower v. State, 684 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Hill v. State, 696 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Hill v. State, 700 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 1997)
- LEE v. State, 695 So. 2d 1314 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- State v. Brower, 713 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 1998)