JULIUS DAVIS, 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.
In this direct criminal appeal, Davis challenged the trial court's denial of his objections to the state's allegedly race-based peremptory challenges of jurors and the imposition of a twenty-year minimum mandatory sentence for robbery with a firearm. The court affirmed the denial of the peremptory challenge claim due to lack of preservation but agreed with the state's concession of error regarding the sentencing claim, reducing the minimum mandatory sentence.
The court affirmed the denial of the peremptory challenge objection because Davis failed to preserve the issue by renewing his objections immediately before the jury was sworn. However, the court agreed with the state's concession of error regarding the sentencing claim and reduced the minimum mandatory sentence from twenty years to ten years for possession of a firearm, since Davis's life sentence as a prison releasee reoffender means he will serve 100 percent of that sentence regardless.
[1] A defendant must renew objections to the state's peremptory challenges immediately before the jury is sworn to preserve the issue for appeal.
[2] A minimum mandatory sentence for robbery with a firearm cannot be imposed if the defendant was not charged with discharging a firearm during the offense.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“appellant failed to preserve it by renewing his objections to the state's use of the peremptory challenges immediately before the jury was sworn”
Establishes the preservation requirement for peremptory challenge objections that Davis failed to satisfy.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavis was convicted of robbery with a firearm. The trial court denied his objections to the state's peremptory challenges of several jurors, which Dav…
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 Direct Criminal Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
In this direct criminal appeal, appellant complains that the trial court erred in (1) denying his objections to the state’s peremptory challenges of several jurors because the challenges were impermissibly based on the jurors’ race; and (2) imposing a minimum mandatory sentence of twenty years in prison for robbery with a firearm because he was not charged with discharging a firearm during the commission of that offense. We affirm as to the first claim because appellant failed to preserve it by renewing his objections to the state’s use of the peremptory challenges immediately before the jury was sworn. See, e.g., Zack v. State, 911 So.2d 1190, 1204 (Fla.2005); Joiner v. State, 618 So.2d 174, 176 (Fla.1993). The state correctly concedes error regarding the second claim because the information did not charge that appellant discharged a firearm during commission of the robbery. See, e.g., Driggers v. State, 917 So.2d 329, 333 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Altieri v. State, 835 So.2d 1181, 1183-84 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Because appellant was sentenced to life in prison as a prison releasee reoffender on the count charging robbery with a firearm, however, he will serve 100 percent of that sentence pursuant to section 775.082(9)(b), Florida Statutes (2007). Therefore, the minimum mandatory sentence on that count may be corrected to properly reflect a ten-year minimum mandatory for possession of a firearm, rather than the twenty-year minimum mandatory imposed, and *1233appellant need not be present. See generally Netterville v. State, 673 So.2d 986, 986 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (a defendant need not be present for correction of “scrivener’s errors”).
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.
WOLF, KAHN, and WEBSTER, JJ, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Joiner v. State, 618 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1993)
- Zack v. State, 911 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 2005)
- Altieri v. State, 835 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Driggers v. State, 917 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Netterville v. State, 673 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)