Beltran v. State
| Citation | 566 So.2d 792 |
| Decision Date | 20 September 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 73047,73047 |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly S477 Felipe BELTRAN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal--Certified Great Public Importance; Third District--Case No. 86-1345 (Dade County).
Lawrence E. Besser of Samek & Besser, Miami, for petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Steven T. Scott and Michael J. Neimand, Asst. Attys. Gen., Miami, for respondent.
We have for review Beltran v. State, 530 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), in which the Third District Court of Appeal found the state had improperly joined offenses occurring on two separate dates, but determined the misjoinder to be harmless error and affirmed the conviction for the offenses committed on the second date. The district court certified the following question to be of great public importance:
DOES THE HARMLESS ERROR RULE APPLY TO CASES IN WHICH OFFENSES HAVE BEEN MISJOINED IN A SINGLE INFORMATION?
Id. at 1049. * The petitioner seeks a per se rule of reversal for a misjoinder of offenses. We reject that solution. We answered the question in the affirmative in Livingston v. State, 565 So.2d 1288 (Fla.1988). In that decision, we followed the holding of the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 106 S.Ct. 725, 88 L.Ed.2d 814 (1986), and held that harmless error may properly be applied to the misjoinder of offenses. We reaffirm that holding.
Petitioner also claims that, if the harmless error rule applies, the district court misapplied it under the circumstances of this case. The district court, in determining that the harmless error rule applied, recognized the principles that must be utilized in making that determination, as we expressed in State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986). Although we have discretion to do so, we find no justification to grant a second review of that issue and, consequently, decline to review that claim.
For the reasons expressed, the decision of the district court is approved.
It is so ordered.
* We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Navarre v. State, 91-3880
...104 S.Ct. 1329, 79 L.Ed.2d 724 (1984); Thames. Any error resulting from the misjoinder of offenses was harmless error. Beltran v. State, 566 So.2d 792 (Fla.1990); State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986). We affirm the requirement that Appellant receive drug evaluation and screening and......
-
People v. Washington
...States v. Shellef , 507 F.3d 82, 100 (2d Cir. 2007) ; United States v. Jawara , 474 F.3d 565, 579 (9th Cir. 2007) ; Beltran v. State , 566 So. 2d 792, 792 (Fla. 1990) ("[H]armless error may properly be applied to the misjoinder of offenses."); Mitchell v. State , 105 Nev. 735, 782 P.2d 1340......
-
Jackson v. State
...where information or evidence at least as prejudicial as that in this case has been improperly presented to the jury.7 In Beltran v. State, 566 So.2d 792 (Fla.1990), the supreme court approved use of the harmless error analysis by the Third District Court of Appeal in a case where offenses ......
-
Vidal v. State, 90-347
...4th DCA 1988); Spivey v. State, 533 So.2d 306 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Beltran v. State, 530 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), approved, 566 So.2d 792 (Fla.1990); Lazarowicz v. State, 561 So.2d 392, 396-397 (Fla. 3d DCA ON MOTION FOR REHEARING We deny rehearing. However, we clarify our opinion in ......