McGriff v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McGriff v. State

705 So. 2d 1055, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1257, 1998 WL 55930

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 13, 1998

DocketNo. 96-3465

StatusPublished

This text of 705 So. 2d 1055 (McGriff 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

McGriff v. State, 705 So. 2d 1055, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1257, 1998 WL 55930 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

BARFIELD, Chief Judge.

Marico McGriff appeals his conviction for robbery asserting error in the court’s conducting juror challenges out of his presence, [1056]*1056citing Coney v. State, 653 So.2d 1009 (Fla.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 921, 116 S.Ct. 315, 133 L.Ed.2d 218 (1995). The jury selection process occurred on April 24, 1995. Coney was final, meaning the time for rehearing had run, on April 27, 1995. Henderson v. State, 698 So.2d 1205 (Fla.1997). The jury was sworn and the trial occurred on April 28, 1995. In Henderson and State v. Mejia, 696 So.2d 339 (Fla.1997), the court said that jury selection was the operative process for determining if Coney applied. However, in Jimenez v. State, 703 So.2d 437 (Fla.1997), the court stated that in Mejia they “ruled that Coney does not apply to trials that were conducted prior to April 27, 1995.” There is no discussion to indicate that the supreme court intended to recede from its prior language in Mejia and Henderson which used the term “selection” rather than “trial” as the critical date. Jury selection having occurred prior to the effective date of Coney, the judgment is affirmed.

JOANOS, J., and SMITH, Senior Judge, concur.

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

BARFIELD, Chief Judge.

Marico McGriff appeals his conviction for robbery asserting error in the court’s conducting juror challenges out of his presence, [1056]*1056citing Coney v. State, 653 So.2d 1009 (Fla.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 921, 116 S.Ct. 315, 133 L.Ed.2d 218 (1995). The jury selection process occurred on April 24, 1995. Coney was final, meaning the time for rehearing had run, on April 27, 1995. Henderson v. State, 698 So.2d 1205 (Fla.1997). The jury was sworn and the trial occurred on April 28, 1995. In Henderson and State v. Mejia, 696 So.2d 339 (Fla.1997), the court said that jury selection was the operative process for determining if Coney applied. However, in Jimenez v. State, 703 So.2d 437 (Fla.1997), the court stated that in Mejia they “ruled that Coney does not apply to trials that were conducted prior to April 27, 1995.” There is no discussion to indicate that the supreme court intended to recede from its prior language in Mejia and Henderson which used the term “selection” rather than “trial” as the critical date. Jury selection having occurred prior to the effective date of Coney, the judgment is affirmed.

JOANOS, J., and SMITH, Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

705 So. 2d 1055, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1257, 1998 WL 55930, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgriff-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack