State v. Carr

336 So. 2d 358
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedAugust 3, 1976
Docket49862
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 336 So. 2d 358 (State v. Carr) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Carr, 336 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 1976).

Opinion

336 So.2d 358 (1976)

STATE of Florida, Petitioner,
v.
Robert F. CARR, Respondent.

No. 49862.

Supreme Court of Florida.

August 3, 1976.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Richard E. Gerstein, State Atty., and Ed O'Donnell, Asst. State Atty., for petitioner.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Michael Vonzamft, Asst. Public Defender, for respondent.

OVERTON, Chief Justice.

This cause is before the Court upon a certified question pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 4.6.

*359 The defendant in this cause pleaded guilty to first degree murder and is subject to the imposition of the death sentence. The defendant entered a written waiver of an advisory jury, which waiver was determined by the trial judge to have been freely, intelligently, and voluntarily made. Counsel for the state and counsel for the defendant under the authority of Lamadline v. State, 303 So.2d 17 (Fla. 1974), have agreed that the defendant may waive the advisory jury proceeding. The trial judge, pursuant

"Whether a trial court in a capital case is required to accept a defendant's valid waiver of an advisory jury pursuant to Florida Statute 921.141(2) resulting in a judicial determination of sentence without benefit of a jury's recommendation in light of the guidelines toward uniformity in sentencing enunciated in Proffitt v. State of Florida, U.S.S.Ct. 1976 [___ U.S. ___, 96 S.Ct. 2960, 48 L.Ed.2d ___], and Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 [92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346] (1972)?"

In response to the question, we find that the trial judge, upon a finding of a voluntary and intelligent waiver, may in his or her discretion either require an advisory jury recommendation, or may proceed to sentence the defendant without such advisory jury recommendation.

The question having been answered, the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, ADKINS, BOYD, SUNDBERG and HATCHETT, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Khadafy Kareem Mullens v. State of Florida
197 So. 3d 16 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2016)
Hodges v. State
55 So. 3d 515 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2010)
Grim v. State
971 So. 2d 85 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2007)
Reynolds v. State
934 So. 2d 1128 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2006)
Valle v. Moore
837 So. 2d 905 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2002)
Muhammad v. State
782 So. 2d 343 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2001)
State v. Hernandez
645 So. 2d 432 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1994)
Sireci v. State
587 So. 2d 450 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1991)
Huff v. State
495 So. 2d 145 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1986)
Palmes v. State
397 So. 2d 648 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1981)
Thompson v. State
389 So. 2d 197 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1980)
Holmes v. State
374 So. 2d 944 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
336 So. 2d 358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-carr-fla-1976.