VERNON THOMAS, 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.
An incomplete trial transcript that cannot be reconstructed prevents meaningful appellate review, entitling the defendant to a new trial.
Appellant was convicted of third degree murder with a firearm. Portions of the voir dire transcript, including objections and rulings, were missing an…
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 Transcript cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Vernon Thomas appeals his conviction and sentence following a jury trial in which he was found guilty of third degree murder with a firearm.
Portions of voir dire, involving peremptory strikes by both parties and appellant’s objections to certain state challenges, were missing from the trial transcripts. This court relinquished jurisdiction to the trial court to reconstruct the record. The trial court issued an order finding the incomplete transcript reflected that defense counsel renewed objections to the court excusing five potential jurors, but the actual objections and the court’s rulings were omitted from the transcript. The trial court further found that the omissions in the record cannot be reconstructed.
This court has recognized that due process entitles a criminal defendant to appellate review and if an incomplete record cannot provide meaningful review, then the defendant is entitled to a new trial. “The right of one convicted of a crime to an appellate review of such judgment of conviction as may be rendered against him is a necessary ingredient of due process of law and guaranteed by the constitution of this state.” Smith v. State, 801 So. 2d 198, 199 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (quoting Simmons v. State, 200 So. 2d 619, 620-21 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)). “Once a criminal defendant has chosen to exercise his right to appeal, he is entitled to a full transcript of the trial record.” Hamilton v. State, 573 So. 2d 109, 110 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).
Although not all omissions from a transcript require a new trial, see Velez v. State, 645 So. 2d 42, 44 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), the missing portion of the transcript in this case is necessary for a complete review. See Smith, 801 So. 2d at 199; McKenzie v. State, 754 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Accordingly, we reverse appellant’s conviction and sentence and remand for a new trial.
FARMER, SHAHOOD and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hagan v. State, 853 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…se to provide for meaningful appellate review of convictions. Numerous cases hold that this rule requires trial courts to ensure that a record is made of criminal contempt proceedings. See Gidden v. State, 613 So. 2d 457 (Fla.1993); Thomas v. State, 828 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Cole v. State, 714 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Blalock, 707 So. 2d at [*598] 740. “While automatic reversal because of a lack of record may not be required in every instance, facially sufficient claims on plenary appeal from…
-
Osberto DeJesus Vargas v. State, 902 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…new trial on the ground that a record should have been made so as to accommodate a search for error now buried in unrecorded history.”); State v. Harry, 823 So. 2d 987 (La.App.2002), writ denied, 836 So. 2d 96, 97 (La.2003). Compare Thomas v. State, 828 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)(omission of voir dire required new trial when there was showing that defense had renewed objection to state challenge of juror); McKenzie v. State, 754 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)(same when showing that state exercised perempto…
-
Terry v. State, 263 So. 3d 799 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)…v. State, 851 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (determining that the absence of a sentencing hearing transcript and the inability of the parties or the court to reconstruct the record required reversal and remand for resentencing); Thomas v. State, 828 So. 2d 456, 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (remanding case for a new trial because missing portion of the transcript was necessary for a complete review and 7 omissions could not be reconstructed); Felton v. State, 523 So. 2d 775, 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (“[I]…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Velez v. State, 645 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Harris v. Jewett, 200 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Simmons v. State, 200 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
- McKENZIE v. State, 754 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Smith v. State, 801 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Nelms v. State, 573 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Hamilton v. State, 573 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)