Dorch v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dorch v. State

848 So. 2d 455, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 9936, 2003 WL 21504038

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 2, 2003

DocketNo. 4D02-440

StatusPublished

This text of 848 So. 2d 455 (Dorch 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

Dorch v. State, 848 So. 2d 455, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 9936, 2003 WL 21504038 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s conviction for aggravated assault. We reject appellant’s contention that fundamental error occurred when the court received the jury verdict in his absence. By his failure to notify either the bailiff or his lawyer of his whereabouts during a recess, appellant voluntarily absented himself from the presence of the court within the meaning of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.180(c). Appellant’s attorney did not object to the taking of the verdict in appellant’s absence. Nor did appellant attempt to make any record in the trial court of his reason for not being present so as to demonstrate that he did not voluntarily absent himself under the rule.

WARNER, POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s conviction for aggravated assault. We reject appellant’s contention that fundamental error occurred when the court received the jury verdict in his absence. By his failure to notify either the bailiff or his lawyer of his whereabouts during a recess, appellant voluntarily absented himself from the presence of the court within the meaning of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.180(c). Appellant’s attorney did not object to the taking of the verdict in appellant’s absence. Nor did appellant attempt to make any record in the trial court of his reason for not being present so as to demonstrate that he did not voluntarily absent himself under the rule.

WARNER, POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

848 So. 2d 455, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 9936, 2003 WL 21504038, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dorch-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.