Mickens v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mickens v. State

773 So. 2d 655, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 16670, 2000 WL 1854008

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 20, 2000

DocketNo. 4D00-617

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 773 So. 2d 655 (Mickens 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

Mickens v. State, 773 So. 2d 655, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 16670, 2000 WL 1854008 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

SHAHOOD, J.

Appellant, Rodney Mickens, appeals his conviction and sentence on the charge of driving while license revoked (habitual), in violation of section 322.34(5), Florida Statutes, punishable as a third degree felony following a non-jury trial.

Appellee, State of Florida, concedes, and we agree, that this conviction must be reversed and remanded for a new trial. The record in this case neither contains a written waiver of a jury trial nor does it reflect that the trial court conducted an oral inquiry as to whether appellant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial. See Tucker v. State, 559 So.2d 218 (Fla.1990); Hyler v. State, 732 So.2d 1208 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Sinkfield v. State, 681 So.2d 838 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

Finding no error in the other issues raised by appellant in this appeal, we affirm as to those issues.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL.

STONE and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

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

SHAHOOD, J.

Appellant, Rodney Mickens, appeals his conviction and sentence on the charge of driving while license revoked (habitual), in violation of section 322.34(5), Florida Statutes, punishable as a third degree felony following a non-jury trial.

Appellee, State of Florida, concedes, and we agree, that this conviction must be reversed and remanded for a new trial. The record in this case neither contains a written waiver of a jury trial nor does it reflect that the trial court conducted an oral inquiry as to whether appellant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial. See Tucker v. State, 559 So.2d 218 (Fla.1990); Hyler v. State, 732 So.2d 1208 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Sinkfield v. State, 681 So.2d 838 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

Finding no error in the other issues raised by appellant in this appeal, we affirm as to those issues.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL.

STONE and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

773 So. 2d 655, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 16670, 2000 WL 1854008, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mickens-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack