FRANCISCO MARTINEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 2002-06-12
No. 3D00-3305
Before JORGENSON, COPE and SORONDO, JJ.
826 So. 2d 367 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2002)

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.


Holding

The court held that the defendant's argument regarding the jury poll was based on a transcription error and lacked merit.


Facts & Procedural History

The defendant appealed his convictions, arguing that the transcript of the jury poll only showed five jurors agreeing to the verdict. The clerk's minu…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Francisco Martinez appeals his convictions for armed carjacking, armed robbery, armed kidnapping, and burglary. Appellate counsel has filed a memorandum brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

Appellant has filed a pro se brief in which he contends that only five of the six jurors agreed to the verdict. The transcript indicates that the jurors were polled, but only records the responses of five of the jurors. The inquiry and response as to the sixth juror is not mentioned in the transcript.

The clerk’s minutes that are part of the record on appeal indicate that all of the jurors concurred in the verdict. Upon inquiry by this court, appellate counsel consulted trial counsel for defendant. Trial counsel’s recollection was that all of the jurors concurred in the verdict and no juror expressed disagreement with the verdict. We are therefore convinced that the clerk’s courtroom minutes are correct and that appellant’s pro se argument is based on a transcription error by the court reporter. Consequently, there is no merit to the appellant’s argument on this point. There is likewise no merit to the appellant’s argument related to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw