Zettle v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Zettle v. State

409 So. 2d 1126, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19211

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 10, 1982·No. No. 80-1145·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We find no reversible error and affirm. As to the appellant’s claim of error for failure of the trial court to instruct on penalties we affirm for the same reasons as those set out in our opinion issued today in the case of Miller v. State, 410 So.2d 557 Fla. 4th DCA, opinion filed 1982. For the same reasons discussed in Miller we certify the following question of great public importance to the Supreme Court:

May the harmless error rule be applied where the only penalty instruction requested is for the main offense charged and the defendant is subsequently convicted of a lesser included offense?

ANSTEAD and HURLEY, JJ., and MINER, CHARLES E., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We find no reversible error and affirm. As to the appellant’s claim of error for failure of the trial court to instruct on penalties we affirm for the same reasons as those set out in our opinion issued today in the case of Miller v. State, 410 So.2d 557 Fla. 4th DCA, opinion filed 1982. For the same reasons discussed in Miller we certify the following question of great public importance to the Supreme Court:

May the harmless error rule be applied where the only penalty instruction requested is for the main offense charged and the defendant is subsequently convicted of a lesser included offense?

ANSTEAD and HURLEY, JJ., and MINER, CHARLES E., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.

Zettle v. State, 409 So. 2d 1126, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19211 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

409 So. 2d 1126 (Zettle v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related