MICHAEL JEROME TANNER, 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 trial judge did not abuse discretion in allowing the jury to submit questions to witnesses, and any error was harmless.
Appellant was convicted of armed robbery and aggravated assault and sentenced to concurrent terms, including a mandatory minimum for firearm use. He a…
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 Mandatory Minimum Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant,. Michael Jerome Tanner, appeals his convictions and sentences for three counts of armed robbery and one count of aggravated assault. He received a sentence of twenty-years for each of the armed robberies and one five-year sentence for the aggravated assault. The sentences were to ran concurrently. Included in the sentence was the requirement of a mandatory minimum three-year incarceration because a firearm was used.1
Appellant claims reversible error because the trial judge permitted the jury to submit questions to him to be asked of the witnesses. We find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in the procedure used. See Ferrara v. State, 101 So. 2d 797 (Fla.1958). Furthermore, any error by the trial court in inviting juror questioning was harmless under the circumstances of this case because none of the questions asked of the witnesses were erroneous or prejudicial to the outcome of the trial. See Bradford v. State, 722 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); see also United States v. Thompson, 76 F. 3d 442 (2d Cir.1996). Furthermore, we find the' evidence sufficient to support the jury’s verdicts on all counts and reject all other claims for reversal.
Accordingly, we affirm the convictions and sentences.
ERVIN and LAWRENCE, JJ., and MCDONALD, PARKER LEE, Senior Judge, concur. . The trial judge included the aggravated assault conviction along with the robbery convictions as a basis for the minimum sentence. This was error because the jury failed to include in its verdict a finding that a firearm was used on this count. See State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla.1998). This does not affect the minimum sentence because of the remaining grounds.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Coates v. State, 855 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…been some misgivings expressed, the district courts of appeal have likewise sanctioned controlled jury questioning. See Henderson v. State, 792 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Patterson v. State, 725 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Tanner v. State, 724 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Bradford v. State, 722 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Pierre v. State, 601 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Scheel v. State, 350 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); see also § 40.50(2), Fla. Stat. (2002). Similarly, virtually all f…
-
State v. Covington, 131 So. 3d 10 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…w as a circuit court plainly has the power to create standing procedural orders directing the conduct of litigation in his or her own courtroom. Owen; Green; and see generally McGlocklin v. State, 907 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Tanner v. State, 724 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Black v. State, 630 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Petitioner also argues that Judge Dodson’s order is contrary to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, particularly rule 3.390. We cannot agree. The rules of criminal proce…
-
Patterson v. State, 725 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…vidual jurors to ask questions of witnesses. We disagree. The supreme court has approved juror questioning of witnesses so long as the trial court controls the procedure. Watson v. State, 651 So. 2d 1159 (Fla.1994). See also, Tanner v. [*387] State, 724 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Bradford v. State, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D2577, 722 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Pierre v. State, 601 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Scheel v. State, 350 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Moreover, the overwhelming majority of st…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1998)
- Ferrara v. State, 101 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1958)
- Bradford v. State, 722 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)