Armando Verdecia v. State of Florida
This text of Armando Verdecia v. State of Florida (Armando Verdecia v. State of Florida) 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.
Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed February 11, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D24-1273 Lower Tribunal No. F20-10727A
Armando Verdecia, Appellant,
vs.
State of Florida, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Miguel M. de la O, Judge.
Rier Jordan, P.A., and Jonathan E. Jordan, for appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Christina L. Dominguez, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE and MILLER, JJ.
PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Ivory v. State, 351 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1977) (“We now hold
that it is prejudicial error for a trial judge to respond to a request from the jury
without the prosecuting attorney, the defendant, and defendant's counsel
being present and having the opportunity to participate in the discussion of
the action to be taken on the jury's request. This right to participate includes
the right to place objections on record as well as the right to make full
argument as to the reasons the jury's request should or should not be
honored.”) and Thomas v. State, 730 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 1998) (“The per
se reversible error rule announced in Ivory is prophylactic in nature and must
be invoked by contemporaneous objection at trial.”).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Armando Verdecia v. State of Florida, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armando-verdecia-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2026.