Banaszek v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Banaszek v. State

821 So. 2d 332, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 8433, 2002 WL 1307477

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 5, 2002

DocketNo. 2D01-1404

StatusPublished

This text of 821 So. 2d 332 (Banaszek 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

Banaszek v. State, 821 So. 2d 332, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 8433, 2002 WL 1307477 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

BLUE, Chief Judge.

Kenneth Banaszek appeals his convictions for first-degree murder and two counts of possession of a controlled substance. Finding no error in the issues regarding the murder conviction, we affirm it without discussion. We reverse the convictions for possession of a controlled substance and remand for a new trial.

At trial, Mr. Banaszek requested that the jury be given an instruction to determine whether he knew that the drugs were controlled substances, citing Chicone v. State, 684 So.2d 736 (Fla.1996). His request was denied. Subsequent to his conviction, the Florida Supreme Court held that the failure to give a properly requested Chicone instruction cannot be harmless error. Scott v. State, 808 So.2d 166 (Fla.2002). Accordingly, the possession convictions, for which Mr. Banaszek was sentenced to time served, must be reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a new trial.

GREEN and COVINGTON, JJ„ Concur.

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

BLUE, Chief Judge.

Kenneth Banaszek appeals his convictions for first-degree murder and two counts of possession of a controlled substance. Finding no error in the issues regarding the murder conviction, we affirm it without discussion. We reverse the convictions for possession of a controlled substance and remand for a new trial.

At trial, Mr. Banaszek requested that the jury be given an instruction to determine whether he knew that the drugs were controlled substances, citing Chicone v. State, 684 So.2d 736 (Fla.1996). His request was denied. Subsequent to his conviction, the Florida Supreme Court held that the failure to give a properly requested Chicone instruction cannot be harmless error. Scott v. State, 808 So.2d 166 (Fla.2002). Accordingly, the possession convictions, for which Mr. Banaszek was sentenced to time served, must be reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a new trial.

GREEN and COVINGTON, JJ„ Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

821 So. 2d 332, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 8433, 2002 WL 1307477, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/banaszek-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack