DWAUNEARIO S. BROWN, 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 err in allowing the State to have the first and last closing argument, as the statute authorizing this procedure was constitutional.
The defendant was convicted of first-degree murder. He challenged his conviction, arguing the statute allowing the State the first and last closing ar…
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 Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.250 cases and more on FLexlaw
FULMER, Judge.
Dwauneario Brown challenges his conviction for first-degree murder, raising five issues. We affirm the conviction and sentence and comment only on his assertion that he was denied his right to the first and last closing argument.
Brown argues that the trial court erred in allowing the State to have first and last closing argument because the statute authorizing this procedure, section 918.19, Florida Statutes (2006), which became effective October 1, 2006, was unconstitutional and the new procedure was not yet adopted as a rule by the Florida Supreme Court at the time of trial (October 31 through November 2, 2006).1
This issue has been addressed by the First and Fourth Districts in Grice v. State, 967 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007), and Taylor v. State, 969 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). In those cases, the courts concluded there was no error in denying the defendants the first and last closing argument. We aligned ourselves with the First District on this issue in Sullivan v. State, 972 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). In accord with Sullivan, we reject this claim for the reasoning expressed in Grice and Taylor. Affirmed.
DAVIS and WALLACE, JJ., Concur. . Brown acknowledges that the Florida Supreme Court has since adopted the statute in amending Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.250 and adopting new rule 3.381. See In re Amendments to the Fla. Rules of Criminal Procedure — Final Arguments, 957 So. 2d 1164 (Fla.2007).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rafine v. State, 1 So. 3d 1251 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…e by driving with knowledge that his license had been revoked. § 322.341, Fla. Stat. (2004). See Rodgers v. State, 804 So. 2d 480, 483 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). The allegedly improper revocation was not a defense to the charge. See also Blandin v. State, 976 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (finding that counsel was not deficient in permitting defendant to enter a plea to driving while license revoked where the period of revocation had expired but license had not been reinstated at time defendant was driving). We aff…
-
Bullard v. State, 26 So. 3d 639 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Blandin v. State, 976 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); State v. Green, 747 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). MONACO, C.J., PALMER and EVANDER, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Grice v. State, 967 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure-Final Arguments, 957 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 2007)
- Sullivan v. State, 972 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- Stuckey v. State, 972 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- Taylor v. State, 969 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)