Armando Verdecia v. State of Florida

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.”).