CHARLES HARRIS, 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.
The court held that the jury selection was proper as it complied with the law in effect at the time of selection, and the challenge to the public defender's lien was not preserved.
Charles Harris was convicted of drug offenses. Pretrial, he moved to strike the jury panel because it was selected from registered voters, not license…
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 Jury Selection Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
GOSHORN, J.
Charles Harris was found guilty as charged of one count of delivery of cocaine and one count of possession of cocaine. Pretrial, Harris unsuccessfully moved to strike the jury panel on the ground that it was selected from registered voters rather than licensed drivers as required by section 40.01, Florida Statutes (1997). Section 40.01 provides:
Jurors shall be taken from the male and female persons at least 18 years of age who are citizens of the United States and legal residents of this state and their respective counties and who possess a driver’s license or identification card issued by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles pursuant to chapter 322 or who have executed the affidavit prescribed in s. 40.011.
Section 40.01 became effective January 1, 1998. See Ch. 91-424, § 1, Laws of Fla. (1991).
Although Harris’s trial was held in January 1998, it is undisputed that the venire was summoned in December, prior to the effective date of the statute. When Harris objected at trial to the seating of a jury drawn from the voter registration roles, the trial court confirmed with the jurors that each held a driver’s license. Harris has not argued he was prejudiced, nor do we see how he could have been. When the venire was chosen, it was chosen in accordance with the law. The trial court properly -denied Harris’s motion to strike the jury panel.
Harris also argues that the court erred in imposing a public defender’s lien without notice and an opportunity to be heard. His failure to object or move to correct his sentence renders the issue unpreserved for appellate review. See Maddox v. State, 708 So. 2d 617, 621 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), pet. for review granted, 718 So. 2d 169 (Fla.1998).
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH and ANTOON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Phillips v. State, 732 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. Williams v. State, 24 Fla. Law Weekly D363, 724 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Harris v. State, 24 Fla. Law Weekly D301, 726 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). GRIFFIN, C.J., HARRIS and PETERSON, JJ., concur…
Authorities Cited
- Maddox v. State, 708 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)