TIMOTHY SCOTT YOUNG, 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.
Timothy Scott Young appealed his conviction for trafficking and possession of controlled substances, arguing that defense counsel's explanation of the reasonable doubt standard during jury selection constituted fundamental error. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that errors committed by a party's own counsel cannot be raised on direct appeal absent a claim of ineffective assistance.
The court held that even if defense counsel did misstate the reasonable doubt standard, such an error cannot be raised on direct appeal. A party cannot seek relief on direct appeal for errors committed by the party's own counsel unless the appeal is based on ineffective assistance of counsel, which was not claimed here.
[1] A party cannot seek relief on direct appeal for an error committed by that party.
[2] A litigant may not inject error into the record and then take advantage of it on appeal.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“It is a very basic premise of appellate jurisprudence that a party cannot seek relief on direct appeal for an error committed by the party.”
Establishes the foundational rule that a defendant cannot appeal errors made by their own counsel on direct appeal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTimothy Scott Young was convicted of trafficking in a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance, and possession of less than 20 grams…
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 Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
In this appeal of a conviction for trafficking, possession of controlled substance, and possession of less than 20 grams of a controlled substance, Timothy Scott Young raises, through counsel, a single issue: whether fundamental error resulted from defense counsel’s explanation of the reasonable doubt standard during jury selection. We will not comment on whether defense counsel did misstate the reasonable doubt standard, for even if defense counsel did misstate the standard, such an error cannot be raised on direct appeal. Appointed appellate counsel asserts that he is not raising a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. But, he fails to explain how the matter raised is cognizable on a direct appeal. It is a very basic premise of appellate jurisprudence that a party cannot seek relief on direct appeal for an error committed by the party. See Escambia County Elec. Light & Power Co. v. Sutherland, 61 Fla. 167, 55 So. 83 (1911); North Shore Hospital, Inc. v. Luzi, 194 So.2d 63 (Fla. 3d DGA 1967); Sea board Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Hendrickson, 212 So.2d 901 (Fla.1968); Holmes v. School Bd. of Orange County, 301 So.2d 145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Martinez v. Pereira, 431 So.2d 326 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Norton v. State, 709 So.2d 87 (Fla.1997); Goodwin v. State, 751 So.2d 537 (Fla.1999); Sheffield v. Superior Ins. Co., 800 So.2d 197 (Fla.2001); Morgan v. State, 146 So.3d 508 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014); et al. “Otherwise a litigant may inject error into the record and take advantage of it which he should not be permitted to do.” Roe v. Henderson, 139 Fla. 386, 389, 190 So. 618, 620 (Fla.1939).
AFFIRMED.
LEWIS, ROWE, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- Goodwin v. State, 751 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 1999)
- Norton v. State, 709 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 1997)
- Sheffield v. Superior Ins. Co., 800 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 2001)
- The Escambia Cnty. Elec. Light & Power Co. v. Sutherland, 61 Fla. 167 (Fla. 1911)
- Roe v. Henderson, 139 Fla. 386 (Fla. 1939)
- Morgan v. State, 146 So. 3d 508 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)
- Holmes v. The Sch. Bd. OF Orange Cnty., 301 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- N. Shore Hosp., Inc. v. Luzi, 194 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Elda Santiero Martinez & Highlands Ins. Co. v. Pereira, 431 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Hendrickson, 212 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)