TONJA STAIRS, 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.
Affirmed conviction for removing a minor from Florida during dependency proceeding; trial counsel's failure to request jury instruction and court's omission of instruction do not constitute fundamental error or ineffective assistance on direct appeal.
Trial counsel's failure to request a jury instruction on a specific defense and the trial court's failure to give the instruction sua sponte do not constitute fundamental error or ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal.
[1] Issues regarding ineffective assistance of counsel based on trial counsel's failure to request a jury instruction are properly raised in a motion under Florida Rule of Cr…
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 intelligenceTonja Stairs was convicted of removing a minor from the State of Florida during a dependency proceeding under § 787.04(3), Fla. Stat. (2003).…
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 Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Chief Judge.
Tonja Stairs challenges her conviction for removing a minor from the State of Florida during a dependency proceeding. See § 787.04(3), Fla. Stat. (2003). Stairs, through her appellate counsel, asserts that her trial counsel was ineffective on the face of the record for neglecting to ask for a jury instruction on a specific defense. She also claims that the court committed fundamental error by failing to give the same jury instruction, even though it was not requested. Finally, she alleges fundamental error in the written jury instructions. After we reviewed the record, we directed the parties to submit supplemental briefs on yet another potential issue involving fundamental error: whether the State failed to present evidence that a crime had been committed. Trial counsel’s boilerplate motion for judgment of acquittal did not preserve this issue for our review.
After thoroughly examining the briefs, the supplemental briefs, the record, and the law, we have determined that Stairs’s complaints about her trial do not rise to the level of fundamental error. See F.B. v. State, 852 So. 2d 226, 229-31 (Fla.2003). And while we question some of counsel’s actions and inactions at trial, we are un able to determine from the face of the record that they constituted ineffective assistance. Such issues are properly raised in a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Our affirmance in this direct appeal is without prejudice to Stairs’s right, if any, to file a timely motion under that rule.
Affirmed.
CASANUEVA and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.