ROBERT JAMES MAGUIRE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
Upon review and consideration of the briefs, record on appeal and oral argument we are of the opinion that no reversible error has been demonstrated. We have carefully considered and reject the retroactive application of the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Florida in Roberts v. State, 335 So. 2d 285 (Fla.1976), adopting the so called “Lyles” rule. In this regard, we agree with the reasoning and rationale of the Third District in Williams v. State, La.App., 346 So. 2d 554, opinion filed February 8, 1977; but see, Ringgo v. State, 339 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). Accordingly, the judgment and sentence are affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
MAGER, C. J., and ALDERMAN, J., concur. DAUKSCH, J., dissents, with opinion.
DAUKSCH, Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent for the reason I do not read Roberts v. State, as cited, as being prospective only. Also, without Roberts there is enough to reverse. The Appellant here timely requested an instruction to the jury concerning the consequences of a not guilty — insanity verdict. The court denied the instruction and gave an instruction as to the consequences of a guilty verdict and an instruction on probation and parole. Appellant presented psychiatrists and a psychologist in support of his insanity defense and showed a prior history of psychiatric problems. It is presumed everyone knows the consequences of a not guilty verdict and the jury was instructed on the consequences of a guilty verdict. So there should have been an instruction as to the consequences of a not guilty — insanity verdict to keep the jury from logically thinking it might turn loose an insane killer.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ward v. Fla. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. & Allstate Ins. Co., 375 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…ot fall within the purview of the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act requiring security.5 The most recent case relied upon by appellant is the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, in Sherman v. Reserve Insurance Company, 350 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), in which the court found coverage based upon the reasoning that an automobile which has been rendered inoperable due to mechanical defect, does not fall within the definition of “motor vehicle” established by law,6 and is theref…
-
Sentry Ins. v. Simonson, 620 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Sherman v. Reserve Ins. Co., 350 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA1977), cert. dismissed, 355 So. 2d 516 (Fla.1978). GLICKSTEIN, C.J., FARMER, J., and DOWNEY, JAMES C., Senior Judge, concur.…
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 536 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…edical payments benefits. Finally, we affirm the trial court’s directed verdict in favor of appellee on the question of compliance with the security requirements of section 627.733, Florida Statutes (1985). See Sherman v. Reserve Insurance Company, 350 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), cert. dismissed, 355 So. 2d 516 (Fla.1978) and Quanstrom v. Standard Guaranty Insurance Company, 504 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). AFFIRMED. WALDEN and STONE, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Roberts v. State, 335 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 1976)
- Williams v. State, 346 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Ringgo v. State, 339 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)