MARION ALVERTIS YEARTY, 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.
Marion Yearty appeals his conviction for shooting into a building, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that without a trial transcript, the defendant failed to demonstrate that any error in denying the suppression motion injuriously affected his substantial rights.
The court held that defendant failed to meet his burden of showing that any error in denying the suppression motion injuriously affected his substantial rights. Without the trial transcript, the appellate court could not presume that error affected the defendant's substantial rights.
[1] A defendant appealing a conviction must demonstrate that any alleged trial court error injuriously affected their substantial rights.
[2] An appellate court cannot presume that an error injuriously affected a defendant's substantial rights.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Even if we were to conclude that the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress, without the trial transcript we cannot be sure, and cannot presume, that the error injuriously affected the substantial rights of the defendant.”
Establishes the core holding that without a complete trial record, the appellate court cannot presume error affected substantial rights.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant was charged with shooting into a building in violation of Section 790.19, Florida Statutes. After a jury was empaneled, defendant filed a wr…
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.
ALDERMAN, Chief Judge.
The defendant appeals his conviction for shooting into a building in violation of Section 790.19, Florida Statutes (1975). The only issue raised is whether the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress. We hold that the defendant failed to meet his burden of showing that the error complained of injuriously affected his substantial rights.
The defendant pled not guilty. After a jury was empaneled the defendant filed a written motion to suppress. The trial court, out of the presence of the jury, held a suppression hearing and denied the motion. The trial then proceeded and the jury returned a verdict of guilty. The defendant provided us with a transcript of the suppression hearing, but failed to give us a transcript of the trial.
Even if we were to conclude that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress, without the trial transcript we cannot be sure, and cannot presume, that the error injuriously affected the substantial rights of the defendant.1 This case is distinguishable from the situation where a defendant, after an adverse ruling on his motion to suppress, withdraws his plea of not guilty and enters a plea of nolo conten-dere, reserving his right to appeal. In that situation the only testimony presented is at the suppression hearing. In the present case the defendant did not change his plea; instead he elected to proceed with the trial, he was found guilty and now he is appealing his conviction.
AFFIRMED.
CROSS and DAUKSCH, JJ., concur. . Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1975), provides:
No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion, after an examination of all the appeal papers, that error was committed that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant. It shall not be presumed that error injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant.
PER CURIAM.
Apellant contends that his attorney and the attorney for the State, prior to the preparation of the record-on-appeal, orally agreed between themselves that a transcript of the trial proceedings was not ne-cesary for this appeal, that the State would accept the statement of facts as set out in appellant’s brief, and that the State would not raise the issue of “harmless” error. This court was not advised. Appellant now seeks a rehearing and an opportunity to supplement the record. We deny rehearing because, even accepting the facts as set out in appellant’s brief, we find that the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to suppress.
REHEARING DENIED.
ALDERMAN, C. J., and CROSS and DAUKSCH, JJ., concur.