RICKIE RENORIED MATHIS, 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.
Appellant's conviction and sentence affirmed where trial occurred before Coney v. State was decided, and under the prior rule, appellant's absence from a bench conference during jury challenges did not violate his rights.
A defendant's absence from a bench conference during jury challenges does not constitute reversible error when the trial occurred before Coney v. State was decided and under the prior applicable rule.
[1] A defendant's absence from a bench conference during jury challenges does not violate constitutional rights when the trial occurred before Coney v. …
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 intelligenceAppellant was present in the courtroom during jury selection but was not physically present at a bench conference during which jury challenges were ex…
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 Direct Criminal Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
WEBSTER, Judge.
In this direct criminal appeal, we affirm appellant’s conviction and sentence. Only one issue merits discussion.
Appellant asserts that he is entitled to a new trial because, although present in the courtroom during jury selection, he was not physically present at a bench conference during which jury challenges were exercised. However, appellant’s trial took place before release of the opinion in Coney v. State, 653 So. 2d 1009 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 116 S.Ct. 315, 133 L.Ed.2d 218 (1995). Accordingly, Coney is inapplicable. Lett v. State, 668 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 1st DCA), review granted, 677 So. 2d 840 (Fla.1996). Pursuant to the rule which preceded that announced in Coney, appellant’s rights were not violated. Francis v. State, 413 So. 2d 1175 (Fla.1982). Moreover, the burden is on appellant to establish the existence of reversible error. E.g., Moore v. State, 504 So. 2d 1311 (Fla. 1st DCA) (claim that reversible error occurred because defense counsel was not present when trial court responded to jury question supported by nothing more than speculation where record was silent on issue), review denied, 513 So. 2d 1062 (Fla.1987). We have been unable to find anything in the record to support appellant’s contention that he was not present at the bench conference during which challenges were exercised. Accordingly, on this record, even if Coney were applicable, appellant would not be entitled to relief.
AFFIRMED.
MINER, ALLEN, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Daniels v. State, 691 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…on that he was absent from the bench when his counsel exercised peremptory challenges, appellant fails to show reversible error, even if Coney is applicable. Moore v. State, 685 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (holding same); see also Mathis v. State, 683 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (en banc). Nothing in the instant record establishes that Daniels was absent from the bench when his counsel exercised peremptory challenges. Daniels thus fails to show error. We therefore affirm Daniels’ conviction and sentenc…
-
Moore v. State, 685 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…in the courtroom during jury selection, he was not physically present at a bench conference during which jury challenges were exercised. However, the relevant portion of the record in this case is substantively identical to that in Mathis v. State, 683 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (Criminal Division en banc). Accordingly, as in Mathis, we hold that appellant has failed to carry his burden to establish the existence of reversible error by demonstrating, from the record, that he was not present at the bench…
-
Carmichael v. State, 693 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…e counsel does not exercise any peremptory challenges, there is no basis for reversal under Coney. See Ganyard v. State, 686 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). The burden is on appellant to establish the existence of reversible error. Mathis v. State, 683 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Herein, the record fails to show that peremptory challenges were exercised by defense counsel. Hence, as in Mathis v. State, we hold that appellant has failed to carry his burden to establish the existence of reversible error by…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Coney v. State, 653 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 1995)
- Francis v. State, 413 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 1982)
- Alfredco Lett v. State, 668 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Moore v. State, 504 So. 2d 1311 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)