Dixon v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dixon v. State

754 So. 2d 127, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2927, 2000 WL 282536

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 17, 2000

DocketNo. 1D99-823

StatusPublished

This text of 754 So. 2d 127 (Dixon 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

Dixon v. State, 754 So. 2d 127, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2927, 2000 WL 282536 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Marvin Dixon appeals his conviction and sentence for burglary of an unoccupied dwelling, arguing that the trial court committed reversible error when it responded to a jury question without the record demonstrating that Dixon and his counsel had notice of the question, were present during the discussion of the answer, or were present when the trial judge gave the jury an answer. We reverse and remand for a new trial, because fundamental, per se reversible error occurred when the trial court answered the jury question in the manner reflected by the record before us. See Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.410; State v. Franklin, 618 So.2d 171, 173 (Fla.1993); Bradley v. State, 513 So.2d 112, 113 (Fla.1987); Curtis v. State, 480 So.2d 1277,1279 (Fla.1985); Ivory v. State, 351 So.2d 26, 28 (Fla.1977); Hannah v. State, 732 So.2d 3, 5 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Woods v. State, 634 So.2d 767, 769 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

ALLEN, WOLF AND VAN NORTWICK, JJ., CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

Marvin Dixon appeals his conviction and sentence for burglary of an unoccupied dwelling, arguing that the trial court committed reversible error when it responded to a jury question without the record demonstrating that Dixon and his counsel had notice of the question, were present during the discussion of the answer, or were present when the trial judge gave the jury an answer. We reverse and remand for a new trial, because fundamental, per se reversible error occurred when the trial court answered the jury question in the manner reflected by the record before us. See Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.410; State v. Franklin, 618 So.2d 171, 173 (Fla.1993); Bradley v. State, 513 So.2d 112, 113 (Fla.1987); Curtis v. State, 480 So.2d 1277,1279 (Fla.1985); Ivory v. State, 351 So.2d 26, 28 (Fla.1977); Hannah v. State, 732 So.2d 3, 5 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Woods v. State, 634 So.2d 767, 769 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

ALLEN, WOLF AND VAN NORTWICK, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

754 So. 2d 127, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2927, 2000 WL 282536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dixon-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack