ELUTERIO ORTIZ, 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 affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in substituting a sleeping juror and that the Criminal Punishment Code is constitutional.
Appellant was convicted of attempted first-degree murder. During proceedings, a selected juror was observed sleeping. The trial court replaced the sle…
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 Abuse Of Discretion (Standard Of Review) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Eluterio Ortiz, appeals his conviction on the charge of attempted first degree murder, raising two points on appeal. We affirm as to both issues raised.
In his first issue, appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in substituting an alternate juror for a juror selected to serve on the panel who had been sleeping during the proceedings.
The trial court has broad discretion with regard to the course of the trial and the conduct of the jurors. See Orosz v. State, 389 So. 2d 1199, 1200 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Accordingly, whether to remove a sleeping juror and substitute him or her with an alternate is within the discretion of the trial court. Id.; accord Bullis v. State, 734 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). In Orosz, the First District concluded that any error in removing a sleeping juror was harmless because the juror “was replaced by a duly selected alternate who had been present during the entire proceedings and appellant has not shown that he was prejudiced by the substitution.” 389 So. 2d at 1200; see also Burgal v. State, 740 So. 2d 82, 83-84 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). With almost identical facts in this case, we follow Orosz.
We also affirm the second issue raised by appellant, the constitutionality of the Criminal Punishment Code. See Hall v. State, 823 So. 2d 757 (Fla.2002).
AFFIRMED.
WARNER, SHAHOOD and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Desir v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Hillsborough County) (M.D. Fla. 2022)
Authorities Cited
- Hall v. State, 823 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 2002)
- Orosz v. State, 389 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Lewis v. State, 740 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Bullis v. State, 734 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)