LAWRENCE HAMMER AND ROXALANA MARIE KERSTEN, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE 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 appellate court affirmed the robbery convictions of the appellants, rejecting their claims that the jury selection process was illegal and that they were denied effective counsel because they were represented by only one attorney.
1. No, the appellants waived any irregularity in jury selection by failing to comply with statutory requirements. 2. No, representation by a single attorney for co-defendants does not automatically constitute ineffective counsel.
“The appellants have not demonstrated error under point one.”
Establishes the court's finding on the jury selection issue.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants Lawrence Hammer and Roxalana Marie Kersten were tried by a jury and convicted of robbery. They appealed their convictions, raising two issu…
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 Statutory Compliance cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants were informed against, tried before a jury, and adjudicated guilty of robbery. On this appeal they present two procedural points: (1) they question the legality of the panel from which the jury was selected, and (2) they contend that they were not represented by effective counsel because only one lawyer represented them. (The lawyer had been privately retained, not court appointed.)
We affirm the judgment as to point two upon the authority of Davis v. State, Fla.App.1968, 209 So.2d 701, and Belton v. State, Fla.App.1968, 211 So.2d 238.
We also affirm the judgment as to point one. The appellants have not demonstrated error under point one. They waived any irregularity in the selection of the jury panel when their lawyer did not comply with the requirements of § 913.01(2), Fla. Stat., F.S.A. See also Douberly v. State, 51 Fla. 41, 40 So. 675 (1906); Feldman v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 21.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ridley v. State, 250 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)…onsideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. See Davis v. State, Fla.App.1968, 209 So. 2d 701; Hernandez v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So. 2d 69; Hammer v. State, Fla.App.1968, 213 So. 2d 619. See also Belsky v. State, Fla.App.1970, 231 So. 2d 256. Affirmed. WALDEN, OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.…
-
Hammer v. State, 222 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1969)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 213 So. 2d 619.…
-
Hammer v. State, 240 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…[*866] PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Dunbar v. State, Fla.1969, 220 So. 2d 366; and Hammer v. State, Fla.App.1968, 213 So. 2d 619.…
Authorities Cited
- Belton v. State, 211 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Feldman v. State, 212 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Davis v. State, 209 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Duke Douberly v. State, 51 Fla. 41 (Fla. 1906)