LENDER LEE MAINES, APPELLANT,
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.
Lender Lee Maines appeals his robbery conviction and sentence, challenging the trial court's denial of his petition for rehearing filed after the jury began deliberations. The court affirmed the conviction, finding no reversible error where the defendant failed to timely notify the court of his intention to file for rehearing before trial commenced.
The trial court did not commit reversible error. The defendant had a fair trial and was properly convicted; his failure to timely notify the court of his intention to file for rehearing before trial commenced, coupled with his apparent strategy of waiting to see the trial outcome before acting, does not constitute grounds for reversal.
[1] A trial court may proceed with a trial and accept a jury's verdict even if the defendant later files a petition for rehearing with the Supreme Court, provided the petitio…
[2] A defendant's failure to object to trial proceedings until after the jury begins deliberations may waive the right to claim reversible error based on a pending petition f…
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“After the Supreme Court dismissed defendant's petition for mandamus and before the trial was commenced, defendant did not tell the Supreme Court or the trial court of his intention to file for rehearing.”
Establishes that defendant's failure to timely notify courts of intention to seek rehearing was strategic rather than accidental.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMaines was arrested and filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Florida Supreme Court alleging the state's failure to comply with CrPR 1.191.…
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 Arrest Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by defendant, Lender Lee Maines, from his conviction and sentence for the crime of robbery. Defendant states that following his arrest he filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Supreme Court of Florida alleging the failure of the state to comply with CrPR 1.191, 33 F.S.A. On October 1, 1971 ■ the Supreme Court granted an alternative writ of mandamus and ordered the trial judge to show cause why a peremptory writ of mandamus should not issue and further ordered all proceedings stayed in the trial court pending disposition of the petition for writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court, 254 So.2d 207, on October 20, 1971, discharged the alternative writ and dismissed the petition for mandamus.
Without any objection by the defendant the trial proceeded on November 1 through November 3, 1971. Following the close of all the evidence and after the jury returned to its deliberations, the defendant announced that his prior case in the Supreme Court concerning his petition for a writ of mandamus was still pending and that he was filing a timely petition for rehearing. The trial court found that the petition was not timely filed and accepted the jury’s verdict convicting defendant. Judgment and sentence were entered on November 3, 1971 and defendant’s petition for rehearing was filed with the Supreme Court on November 4, 1971. Subsequently, defendant filed a petition for arrest of judgment in the trial court which was denied, and on November 27, 1971 the Supreme Court denied the petition for rehearing.
The trial court’s actions do not constitute reversible error. After the Supreme Court dismissed defendant’s petition for mandamus and before the trial was commenced, defendant did not tell the Supreme Court or the trial court of his intention to file for rehearing. No objection was heard by defendant until the jury began deliberating. It seems that defendant proposed to wait and see how his trial proceeded, and only if the end result looked to be unfavorable would he attempt to- file his petition for rehearing in the Supreme Court. Defendant had a fair day in court and was duly found guilty by the jury and sentenced by the judge. Other points raised on appeal by defendant have been considered and found to be devoid of merit.
No reversible error having been made to appear, the judgment and sentence appealed are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State of Fla. ex rel. Lender Lee Maines & Charlie B. Brown v. The Honorable Paul Baker, 254 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 1971)