Archibald v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Archibald v. State

715 So. 2d 1154, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 10849, 1998 WL 552690

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 26, 1998

DocketNo. 97-1149

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 715 So. 2d 1154 (Archibald v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Archibald v. State, 715 So. 2d 1154, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 10849, 1998 WL 552690 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

WARNER, Judge.

Appellant claims that per se reversible error occurred when, in responding to a jury question during deliberations, the trial court supplied the jury with a written copy of one instruction but failed to supply written copies of the remaining instructions. However, since appellant failed to object, the issue is not preserved for appeal. See Serrano v. State, 639 So.2d 68, 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); see also State v. Delva, 575 So.2d 643, 644 (Fla.1991)(jury instruction errors subject to contemporaneous objection rule and are not reviewable absent objection); Rojas v. State, 552 So.2d 914, 915 (Fla.1989)(objection required to preserve error in reinstruction for appeal); Bohannon v. State, 546 So.2d 1081, 1082 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (specific objection required to preserve reinstruction issue for appellate review).

As to appellant’s sentences, the state concedes that the sentences on appellant’s two misdemeanor convictions were illegal as exceeding the statutory maximum. However, because appellant has served his sentence, no relief is possible. The second issue is therefore moot.

GLICKSTEIN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

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

WARNER, Judge.

Appellant claims that per se reversible error occurred when, in responding to a jury question during deliberations, the trial court supplied the jury with a written copy of one instruction but failed to supply written copies of the remaining instructions. However, since appellant failed to object, the issue is not preserved for appeal. See Serrano v. State, 639 So.2d 68, 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); see also State v. Delva, 575 So.2d 643, 644 (Fla.1991)(jury instruction errors subject to contemporaneous objection rule and are not reviewable absent objection); Rojas v. State, 552 So.2d 914, 915 (Fla.1989)(objection required to preserve error in reinstruction for appeal); Bohannon v. State, 546 So.2d 1081, 1082 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (specific objection required to preserve reinstruction issue for appellate review).

As to appellant’s sentences, the state concedes that the sentences on appellant’s two misdemeanor convictions were illegal as exceeding the statutory maximum. However, because appellant has served his sentence, no relief is possible. The second issue is therefore moot.

GLICKSTEIN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

715 So. 2d 1154, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 10849, 1998 WL 552690, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/archibald-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack