ROBERT L. STARLING, 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 court did not abuse its discretion in declaring a mistrial, and the subsequent trial did not violate double jeopardy principles.
Defendant was convicted of two lewd and lascivious acts on a child. A prior trial ended in a mistrial due to defense counsel's improper arguments and …
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 Allen Instruction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Counsel for Robert Starling has filed Anders1 briefs appealing Mr. Starling’s convictions and sentences for two lewd and lascivious acts on a child under 16. We affirm.
During our review of the record, we determined that there had been a previous trial on these charges that ended in a mistrial. Because our record did not include the details of that prior proceeding, we ordered Mr. Starling’s counsel to supplement the record with the transcript from the first trial. After counsel received and reviewed this transcript, he filed a supplemental Anders brief. He concluded that the grant of a mistrial in the first proceeding was not an abuse of discretion, and that the subsequent trial did not violate principles of double jeopardy.
We have conducted a thorough, independent review of the entire record. In the initial proceeding, Mr. Starling’s trial counsel made numerous improper arguments in closing. When the jury retired, the trial judge strongly rebuked trial counsel for his behavior during the trial. It appears that these reprimands were appropriate under the circumstances. Sometime thereafter, the jury indicated by note that they were, deadlocked. Apparently concerned that defense counsel’s inappropriate argument had tainted the fairness of the proceedings, the trial judge refused to give an Allen2 instruction and declared a mistrial. This decision was not an abuse of discretion, and the new-trial that resulted did not violate principles of double jeopardy. See Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497, 98 S.Ct. 824, 54 L.Ed.2d 717 (1978); Cohens v. Elwell, 600. So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
Affirmed.
ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and GREEN and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur. . See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
. See Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 17 S.Ct. 154, 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
O'Neal v. State, 860 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…e imposed sentence he would actually serve. Affirmative misadvice of counsel as to eligibility for gain time is a basis for postconviction relief, if not refuted by the record. See Jordan v. State, 833 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Wilson v. State, 760 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Little v. State, 673 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand with instructions to either hold an evidentiary hearing or attach portions of the record conclusively refuting the…
-
Ahmad Dunbar v. State, 787 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…the trial court was facially insufficient to obtain such relief. The motion fails to state that Dunbar would not have entered a plea had he known that his sentence was not going to be at the bottom of the sentencing guidelines. See Wilson v. State, 760 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). We also note that although Dunbar alleged that his plea was involuntary, he did not seek to withdraw his plea in the trial court. We therefore affirm the denial of Dunbar’s motion. This affirmance is without prejudice to Dunbar…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (U.S. 1896)
- Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (U.S. 1978)