Amaya v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Amaya v. State

641 So. 2d 466, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 8101, 1994 WL 440577

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 17, 1994·No. No. 93-3339·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse and remand for a new trial because of the trial court’s error in refusing appellant access to counsel during an overnight recess at trial. We reject appellant’s claims that the trial court erred in denying motions to dismiss and for directed verdict.

The state concedes, and we agree, that the trial court erred in refusing appellant access to counsel. See Geders v. United States, 425 U.S. 80, 96 S.Ct. 1330, 47 L.Ed.2d 592 (1976); Bova v. State, 410 So.2d 1343 (Fla.1982). Further, we are unable to determine that the error was harmless under the strict test set out in State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986).

ANSTEAD, KLEIN and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We reverse and remand for a new trial because of the trial court’s error in refusing appellant access to counsel during an overnight recess at trial. We reject appellant’s claims that the trial court erred in denying motions to dismiss and for directed verdict.

The state concedes, and we agree, that the trial court erred in refusing appellant access to counsel. See Geders v. United States, 425 U.S. 80, 96 S.Ct. 1330, 47 L.Ed.2d 592 (1976); Bova v. State, 410 So.2d 1343 (Fla.1982). Further, we are unable to determine that the error was harmless under the strict test set out in State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986).

ANSTEAD, KLEIN and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.

Amaya v. State, 641 So. 2d 466, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 8101, 1994 WL 440577 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

641 So. 2d 466 (Amaya v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related