YOHANIZ CEBALLOS PALOMINO
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 Defendant was convicted of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and two counts of violation of a domestic violence injunction following a nine-day trial. On appeal, a trial transcript from one day was missing and could not be reconstructed. Both the Defendant and State agreed the missing transcript was necessary for appellate review and that reversal and remand for a new trial were warranted.
The court reversed the Defendant's convictions and sentences and remanded the case for a new trial. The court held that a defendant is entitled to a full transcript containing appealable issues, and the absence of a transcript that is necessary for full appellate review prejudices the defendant.
[1] A defendant is entitled to a complete trial transcript for appellate review, and when a transcript cannot be reconstructed, reversal of conviction and remand for new tria…
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 intelligence“defendant is entitled to a full transcript containing appealable issues”
State's confession of error acknowledging the fundamental principle that appellate review requires a complete trial record.
The Defendant was convicted after a nine-day trial of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and two counts of violation of a domestic violence injun…
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 Aggravated Battery With A Deadly Weapon cases and more on FLexlaw
KUNTZ, J.
The Defendant was convicted of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and two counts of violation of a domestic violence injunction following a nine-day trial. The Defendant appealed his convictions and sentences, and a record on appeal was transmitted to this Court. But the transcript for one of the days of trial was missing from the record.
Within the record was an affidavit from the court reporter. The affidavit stated that the court reporter’s electronic files and backup files for the day in question were empty. Based on the affidavit, the Defendant moved to relinquish jurisdiction to reconstruct the record for the missing day.
On relinquishment, the Defendant and the State agreed that the “missing transcript was necessary for full [appellate] review of the case.” They also agreed that the “Defendant’s convictions and sentences should be reversed, and that this case should be remanded for a new trial.” The circuit court entered an order on relinquishment, confirming the transcript is unavailable and cannot be reconstructed and that the “absence of the transcript prejudices the Defendant in his appeal.”
Consistent with the order on relinquishment, the State filed a confession of error, acknowledging that a “defendant is entitled to a full transcript containing appealable issues.” We agree. See Robinson v. State, 262 So. 3d 826, 826 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (citing Hardy v. United States, 375 U.S. 277, 279 (1964); Ader v. State, 814 So. 2d 461, 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Smith v. State, 801 So. 2d 198, 199-200 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)).
The Defendant’s convictions and sentences are reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial on one count of aggravated battery (deadly weapon) and two counts of violation of a domestic violence injunction.
Reversed and remanded. CIKLIN and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hardy v. United States, 375 U.S. 277 (U.S. 1964)
- Smith v. State, 801 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Ader v. State, 814 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Mercantil Bank, N.A. v. Pazmino, 262 So. 3d 826 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)