DANNY BRANDON, 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.
Danny Brandon appeals his convictions for attempted armed carjacking, armed carjacking, felony causing bodily injury, assault, and firearm possession by a convicted felon. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding that although the prosecutor improperly informed the jury of Brandon's potential life sentence during closing argument, the error was harmless because defense counsel had already elicited similar penalty information during cross-examination.
The prosecutor's statement improperly informed the jury of possible penalties, which is improper in non-capital cases since juries do not recommend sentences. However, the error was harmless because defense counsel had already introduced the same information during cross-examination of the accomplices.
[1] Except in death penalty cases, it is improper to inform the jury of the possible penalties for a defendant's crime.
[2] Information regarding potential penalties is improper for a jury's consideration because, except in death penalty cases, the jury does not recommend a sentence.
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“except in death penalty cases, it is improper to inform the jury of the possible penalties for the defendant's crime”
Establishes the governing legal rule that courts may not disclose sentencing exposure to juries in non-capital cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrandon was charged with attempted armed carjacking, armed carjacking, felony causing bodily injury, assault, and firearm possession by a convicted fe…
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 Armed Carjacking cases and more on FLexlaw
ANTOON, J.
Danny Brandon appeals the judgments and sentences entered by the trial court after the jury found him guilty of committing the crimes of attempted armed carjacking, felony causing bodily injury, armed carjacking, assault, and possession of a firearm by a con- vieted felon.1 We affirm.
Two of Mr. Brandon’s accomplices testified at trial on behalf of the state. During cross-examination, defense counsel attacked the accomplices’ credibility by establishing that they had been charged with the same offenses for which Mr. Brandon was being tried. Defense counsel also elicited testimony that the accomplices were facing possible terms of life imprisonment if found guilty of the charges.
Thereafter, during final argument both the prosecutor and defense counsel referred to Mr. Brandon’s possible sentence if convicted. First, the prosecutor informed the jury that Mr. Brandon faced life imprisonment, stating: “Well, if [the accomplices] are facing life sentences, certainly [Mr. Brandon] is in the same boat.” The trial court overruled defense counsel’s objection to the statement. Defense counsel later reminded the jury that Mr. Brandon’s accomplices were charged with the same crimes as he was and then argued that their testimony was untrustworthy because they were required to testify in order to satisfy the terms of their plea agreements.
On appeal, Mr. Brandon correctly argues that, except in death penalty cases, it is improper to inform the jury of the possible penalties for the defendant’s crime. See Nixon v. State, 572 So. 2d 1336, 1345 (Fla.1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 854, 112 S.Ct. 164, 116 L.Ed.2d 128 (1991). Such information is improper because, except in death penalty eases, the jury does not recommend a sentence. See id. Thus, the prosecutor’s comment made during closing that Mr. Brandon could be sentenced to life imprisonment was improper. See id.
However, by the time the prosecutor made the improper comment, the “cat was already out of the bag.” Defense counsel had already advised the jury of the possible penalties facing Mr. Brandon should he be convicted of the crimes charged when he cross-examined Mr. Brandon’s accomplices. As a result, the prosecutor’s improper closing argument was harmless. See Johnson v. State, 670 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).
JUDGMENTS and SENTENCES AFFIRMED.
GRIFFIN, C. J., and THOMPSON, J., concur. . See §§ 812.133, 777.04, 782.051, 784.011, 790.23, Fla.Stat. (1997).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Nixon v. State, 572 So. 2d 1336 (Fla. 1990)
- Newman v. United States, 502 U.S. 854 (U.S. 1991)
- Dugan v. Ohio, 502 U.S. 854 (U.S. 1991)
- Johnson v. State, 670 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)