DWIGHT VERNER REGION
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A trial court's reprimand of defense counsel in the jury's presence does not constitute reversible error unless the judge's comments so severely undermine the attorney's advocacy that they create a prejudicial effect on the defendant.
[1] A trial court's reprimand of defense counsel in the jury's presence does not constitute reversible error unless the judge's comments so severely undermine the attorney's…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“reversible error occurs when the judge's comments and conduct 'so severely call into question an attorney's level of advocacy and sense of fairness' that they create a prejudicial effect on the defendant.”
Standard for when judicial admonishment of counsel rises to the level of reversible error
Dwight Verner Region appealed his conviction from Miami-Dade Circuit Court, raising issues regarding the trial judge's conduct toward defense counsel …
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 Reversible Error cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed February 28, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D22-0685 Lower Tribunal No. F21-1504
________________
Dwight Verner Region,
Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Richard Hersch, Judge. Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Shannon Hemmendinger, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Christina L. Dominguez, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before EMAS, SCALES and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Jackson v. State, 2 So. 3d 1036, 1037 (Fla. 3d DCA
2009) (“What the appellant characterizes as self-initiated ‘interjections’ by the trial judge were motivated by the judge's appropriate interest in preserving the regularity and orderliness of the proceeding.”); R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co. v. Robinson, 216 So. 3d 674, 684 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (“The trial court should clearly convey to counsel that misconduct will not be tolerated, even in the presence of the jury if necessary”) (citing Gomez v.
State, 751 So. 2d 630, 632-33 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (“There comes a point and time in the conduct of a trial that the trial judge should and must intervene in the egregious conduct, whether it has been challenged or not.”)); Koelemij v. State, 285 So. 3d 376, 379 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (“Although the better practice is to excuse the jury before admonishing an attorney in open court,
reproving defense counsel in the jury's presence ‘does not, in itself,
constitute reversible error.’ Paramore v. State, 229 So. 2d 855, 860 (Fla.
1969), vacated in part on other grounds, 408 U.S. 935, 92 S.Ct. 2857, 33
L.Ed.2d 751 (1972). ‘[I]n order to constitute reversible error, [a reprimand] must prejudice the party whose counsel was rebuked.’ Id. ‘Whether a new trial should be granted under such circumstances is subject to the trial judge's discretion, as [the trial court] is in a better position to determine the effect of such rebuke or reprimand.’ Id. ‘However, reversible error occurs when the judge's comments and conduct “so severely call into question an attorney's level of advocacy and sense of fairness” that they create a prejudicial effect on the defendant.’ London v. State, 127 So. 3d 688, 689 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)”) (additional quotations omitted).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Gomez v. State, 751 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Jackson v. State, 2 So. 3d 1036 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Robinson, 216 So. 3d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)
- Koelemij v. State, 285 So. 3d 376 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)
- Emmett James Paramore v. State, 229 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 1969)
- Vasilyn N. London v. State, 127 So. 3d 688 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
- Paramore v. Florida, 408 U.S. 935 (U.S. 1972)