Bowick v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bowick v. State

671 So. 2d 232, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 3469, 1996 WL 164342

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 8, 1996

DocketNo. 94-3666

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 671 So. 2d 232 (Bowick 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

Bowick v. State, 671 So. 2d 232, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 3469, 1996 WL 164342 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[233]*233 ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

This direct criminal appeal was affirmed without opinion. Appellant has nqw filed a motion for clarification, rehearing, rehearing en banc and/or certification. He asserts that he is entitled to a new trial because, though present in the courtroom during jury selection, he was not present at the bench when peremptoiy challenges were exercised, and there is no evidence that he waived his right to be present. We affirm. Lett v. State, 668 So.2d 1094 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (on rehearing). However, we grant the request for certification, and certify to the supreme court the same question certified on rehearing in Lett:

DOES THE DECISION IN CONEY [V. STATE, 653 So.2d 1009 (Fla.1995)] APPLY TO “PIPELINE CASES,” THAT IS, THOSE OF SIMILARLY SITUATED DEFENDANTS WHOSE CASES'WERE PENDING ON DIRECT REVIEW OR NOT YET FINAL DURING THE TIME CONEY WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION BUT PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE OPINION?

In all other respects, appellant’s motion is denied. Appellant’s judgment and sentence are affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

MINER, WEBSTER and MICKLE, JJ., concur.

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

[233]*233 ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

This direct criminal appeal was affirmed without opinion. Appellant has nqw filed a motion for clarification, rehearing, rehearing en banc and/or certification. He asserts that he is entitled to a new trial because, though present in the courtroom during jury selection, he was not present at the bench when peremptoiy challenges were exercised, and there is no evidence that he waived his right to be present. We affirm. Lett v. State, 668 So.2d 1094 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (on rehearing). However, we grant the request for certification, and certify to the supreme court the same question certified on rehearing in Lett:

DOES THE DECISION IN CONEY [V. STATE, 653 So.2d 1009 (Fla.1995)] APPLY TO “PIPELINE CASES,” THAT IS, THOSE OF SIMILARLY SITUATED DEFENDANTS WHOSE CASES'WERE PENDING ON DIRECT REVIEW OR NOT YET FINAL DURING THE TIME CONEY WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION BUT PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE OPINION?

In all other respects, appellant’s motion is denied. Appellant’s judgment and sentence are affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

MINER, WEBSTER and MICKLE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

671 So. 2d 232, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 3469, 1996 WL 164342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowick-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack