JARVIS RAMON HAYNES, 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.
Jarvis Ramon Haynes appealed his conviction on three grounds: improper imposition of costs on a per-count basis, a trial judge's delegation of jury instructions to a law clerk, and the insertion of "or a principal" language into the robbery charge. The court agreed the per-count costs were error and corrected that, but rejected the other claims as failing to rise to fundamental error.
The court held that imposing costs on a per-count basis was error and struck the costs for counts II and III. The court held that while having a law clerk read jury instructions violated Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.390(a) and section 918.10, Florida Statutes, this did not rise to fundamental error. The insertion of "or a principal" language, though redundant, did not deprive Haynes of a fair trial or invalidate his conviction.
[1] Costs may be imposed on a per-case basis, not on a per-count basis.
[2] A trial judge may not delegate the duty to instruct the jury to a law clerk without a compelling reason and prior agreement of the parties.
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“this was a clear violation of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.390(a) and section 918.10, Florida Statutes (2005). Not surprisingly, we have found no other cases in Florida or otherwise where a clerk has been allowed to instruct the jury, and we disapprove this practice.”
Establishes that delegating jury instructions to a law clerk violates applicable rules and is disapproved by the court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHaynes was convicted of robbery. At trial, the judge delegated the reading of jury instructions to his law clerk rather than delivering them himself. …
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 Principal In The Second Degree cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIFFIN, J.
In this appeal, Jarvis Ramon Haynes [“Haynes”] makes three claims of error. He correctly contends that it was error to impose costs on a per-count basis rather than on a per-case basis. The State concedes the error. We strike the costs imposed for counts II and III.
Haynes’s remaining claims of error require us to find the claimed error to b.e fundamental because no objection was raised below. Haynes complains that the trial judge had the jury instructions read by his law clerk (apparently a law student) rather than instructing the jury himself. Nothing appears in the record to indicate the judge was incapable of instructing the jury himself,1 and this was a clear violation of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.390(a) and section 918.10, Florida Statutes (2005). Not surprisingly, we have found no other cases in Florida or otherwise where a clerk has been allowed to instruct the jury, and we disapprove this practice. Trial judges in this district will not be fobbing off to a law clerk their important duty to instruct the jury, certainly not without some good reason and prior agreement of the parties. However, we do not see how it can rise to the level of fundamental error in this case.
Finally, Haynes complains of the insertion of the words “or a principal” into the robbery charge, i.e., “Jarvis Haynes or a principal took the electronic equipment....” (Emphasis added). The standard instruction on “Principal” was also given. The only objection raised below was that this instruction varied from the standard instruction, but counsel for Haynes acknowledged:
I can’t argue it is prejudicial because it is the law and I understand it is the law. I understand why Mr. Green is inserting it in there, but for the record, I would object to anything other than the stan dard language that is in these jury instructions.
We agree that the amendment to the instruction is redundant, but notwithstanding Haynes’s protestations on appeal, in the context of the conduct of the entire trial, did not deprive Haynes of a fair trial or invalidate his conviction.2
AFFIRMED; costs imposed in Counts II and III STRICKEN.
PALMER and ORFINGER, JJ., concur. . To the contrary, it appears the judge read some of the instructions, but the clerk read the majority.
. Haynes relies on Concepcion v. State, 857 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), but that case involved identifying different defendants on a "trafficking” charge. This case is more like Carpenter v. State, 785 So. 2d 1182 (Fla.2001).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barrientos v. State, 1 So. 3d 1209 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…. That said, we disapprove the trial court’s approach to the instructions on the lesser included offenses in this case. The trial court was required to orally deliver its charge to the jury. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.390(b).6 See generally Haynes v. State, 946 So. 2d 1106, 1107 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (noting the importance of the trial judge’s duty to instruct the jury orally). The trial court does not adequately discharge its important duty to instruct the jury on the law in a felony prosecution by delivering an off-th…
-
Jarvis Haynes v. State, 73 So. 3d 793 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…tition for writ of habeas corpus filed in Orange County Circuit Court where he was convicted in 2005 of third-degree felony murder, robbery with a firearm, and dealing in stolen property. This court affirmed the convictions in 2006. Haynes v. State, 946 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). Although Haynes has completed his sentence on the third-degree felony murder charge, he is currently serving concurrent sentences on the latter two charges in Taylor County, Florida.1 Haynes first seeks relief alleging that the…
Authorities Cited
- Carpenter v. State, 785 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 2001)
- Concepcion v. State, 857 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)