Williams v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Williams v. State

638 So. 2d 935, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 340, 1994 Fla. LEXIS 985, 1994 WL 275317

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedJune 23, 1994

DocketNo. 82914

StatusPublished

This text of 638 So. 2d 935 (Williams v. State) 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

Williams v. State, 638 So. 2d 935, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 340, 1994 Fla. LEXIS 985, 1994 WL 275317 (Fla. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

HARDING, Justice.

We review Williams v. State, 626 So.2d 1100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), based on apparent conflict with Foster v. State, 387 So.2d 344 (Fla.1980); State v. Youngblood, 217 So.2d 98 (Fla.1968); Belton v. State, 217 So.2d 97 (Fla.1968), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 915, 89 S.Ct. 1764, 23 L.Ed.2d 229 (1969); and Johnson v. State, 600 So.2d 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

The district court affirmed the trial court on authority of Rock v. State, 622 So.2d 487 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). In our review of Rock we held that absent a showing of actual conflict or specific prejudice, a consolidated (or multiple) jury selection process does not deny a defendant effective assistance of counsel. Rock v. State, 638 So.2d 933 (Fla.1994).

Accordingly, we approve the district court’s decision in Williams. As we stated in Rock, we find no conflict with the decisions in Foster, Youngblood, and Belton. We approve the opinion below and disapprove Johnson to the extent it conflicts with our decision in Rock.

It is so ordered.

GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW and KOGAN, JJ., and McDONALD, Senior Justice, concur.

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