Baranda v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Baranda v. State

422 So. 2d 86, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21706

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 23, 1982

DocketNo. 82-426

StatusPublished

This text of 422 So. 2d 86 (Baranda 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

Baranda v. State, 422 So. 2d 86, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21706 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After a nonjury trial, the defendant was convicted and adjudicated guilty of the crime of murder in the first degree. His sole point on appeal is that his waiver of the right to trial by jury was accomplished under coercive circumstances. His contention is predicated upon the colloquy between the court and trial counsel during which the state acknowledged that it abandoned its request for the death penalty in exchange for the defendant’s waiver of his right to trial by jury. In the ensuing dialogue between the defendant and the court, the defendant acknowledged he had waived trial by jury with advice of counsel and that the waiver was accomplished freely and voluntarily without threat or coercion. The defendant relies upon a line of cases condemning the coercive waiver of jury trial. [87]*87Kg., Molfetas v. State, 323 So.2d 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). However, on this record, devoid of any evidence of coercion, we would have to engage in pure speculation in order to determine that the defendant’s waiver was not properly obtained.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

After a nonjury trial, the defendant was convicted and adjudicated guilty of the crime of murder in the first degree. His sole point on appeal is that his waiver of the right to trial by jury was accomplished under coercive circumstances. His contention is predicated upon the colloquy between the court and trial counsel during which the state acknowledged that it abandoned its request for the death penalty in exchange for the defendant’s waiver of his right to trial by jury. In the ensuing dialogue between the defendant and the court, the defendant acknowledged he had waived trial by jury with advice of counsel and that the waiver was accomplished freely and voluntarily without threat or coercion. The defendant relies upon a line of cases condemning the coercive waiver of jury trial. [87]*87Kg., Molfetas v. State, 323 So.2d 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). However, on this record, devoid of any evidence of coercion, we would have to engage in pure speculation in order to determine that the defendant’s waiver was not properly obtained.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

422 So. 2d 86, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21706, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baranda-v-state-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack