Vilsaint v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Vilsaint v. State

890 So. 2d 1293, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 980, 2005 WL 235959

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 2, 2005

DocketNo. 3D03-1199

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 890 So. 2d 1293 (Vilsaint 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

Vilsaint v. State, 890 So. 2d 1293, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 980, 2005 WL 235959 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

Aniel Vilsaint appeals from a conviction and sentence for aggravated battery. Despite repeated and diligent attempts by the parties and the court below, the parties have been unable to obtain transcripts of significant portions of the proceedings below and have been unable to reconstruct the record. Under the circumstances, the State properly concedes that a new trial must be ordered. See, e.g., Delap v. State, 350 So.2d 462 (Fla.1977); A.B. v. State, 816 So.2d 1269 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Murphy v. State, 789 So.2d 1235 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Jones v. State, 780 So.2d 218 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Roberts v. State, 766 So.2d 443 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Hunt v. State, 719 So.2d 394 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Swain v. State, 701 So.2d 675 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Rozier v. State, 669 So.2d 353 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Blasco v. State, 680 So.2d 1052 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Fairell v. State, 662 So.2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).

Vilsaint’s conviction is, therefore, reversed and this matter is remanded for a new trial below.

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

CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

Aniel Vilsaint appeals from a conviction and sentence for aggravated battery. Despite repeated and diligent attempts by the parties and the court below, the parties have been unable to obtain transcripts of significant portions of the proceedings below and have been unable to reconstruct the record. Under the circumstances, the State properly concedes that a new trial must be ordered. See, e.g., Delap v. State, 350 So.2d 462 (Fla.1977); A.B. v. State, 816 So.2d 1269 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Murphy v. State, 789 So.2d 1235 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Jones v. State, 780 So.2d 218 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Roberts v. State, 766 So.2d 443 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Hunt v. State, 719 So.2d 394 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Swain v. State, 701 So.2d 675 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Rozier v. State, 669 So.2d 353 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Blasco v. State, 680 So.2d 1052 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Fairell v. State, 662 So.2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).

Vilsaint’s conviction is, therefore, reversed and this matter is remanded for a new trial below.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

890 So. 2d 1293, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 980, 2005 WL 235959, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vilsaint-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack