Dorminey v. State, 45825
| Decision Date | 16 April 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 45825,45825 |
| Parties | Billy Joe DORMINEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Robert E. Pyle, Lake Alfred, and Jack T. Edmund, Bartow, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Mary Jo M. Gallay, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This cause is before us on a direct appeal from an Order of the Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit upholding the constitutionality of F.S. 782.04 and transferred to this Court by the District Court of Appeal, 2nd District. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(1), Florida Constitution, West's F.S.A.
In the early morning hours of June 16, 1973, outside a bar in Haines City, Florida, David Passmore died as a result of a shotgun wound. Thereafter, appellant arrived at the Davenport, Florida, police department and surrendered himself, stating that he had just shot and killed a man in Haines City because he was running around with his wife.
A jury chose to convict appellant of murder in the first degree and recommended mercy, whereupon the trial judge sentenced him to a term of life imprisonment.
Appellant now raises the following issues on appeal:
I. DID THE COURT ERR IN INSTRUCTING THE JURY RELATIVE TO FIRST AND SECOND DEGREE MURDER?
II. DID THE COURT ERR IN INSTRUCTING THE JURY ON THE PROSPECTIVE PENALTIES?
III. DID THE COURT ERR IN ADJUDICATING THE DEFENDANT GUILTY AND SENTENCING HIM TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT?
1. With regard to Issue I, a review of the record on appeal reveals that at no point did the appellant make an objection to the charges given by the Court with regard to first and second degree murder, but only as to the charges on manslaughter and reasonable doubt, for which no error is alleged.
Having failed to preserve this point for appeal, appellant may not now raise it for the first time.
It is noted, however, that the Court in its charges properly tracked the words of the statute in point, adhered to the standard jury charges in criminal cases as approved by this Court, and in so doing committed no error.
Florida Statute 782.04 has previously been challenged in this Court and has been sustained as constitutional (State v. Dixon, 283 So.2d 1, Fla.1973; Alford v. State, 307 So.2d 433, Fla.1975) thus rendering appellant's attack to be without merit.
2. As to Issue II, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 3.390(a) directs that the presiding judge shall include in his charge to the jury the penalty defined by law for the offense for which the accused is then on trial. In properly applying this rule clearly no error was committed, and further comment is unnecessary. (See Johnson v. State, 308 So.2d 38, Fla.1975).
3. Lastly, we...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fox v. Fox
..."will not consider points raised for the first time on appeal." Castor v. State , 365 So.2d 701, 703 (Fla. 1978) (citing Dorminey v. State , 314 So.2d 134 (Fla. 1975) ).The requirement that a party preserve an issue is based on fairness to the litigants, the court, and the judicial system. ......
-
Kelly v. State
...(citing O'Donnell; Owens; Owens v. State, 300 So.2d 70 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), appeal dismissed, 305 So.2d 203 (Fla.1974); Dorminey v. State, 314 So.2d 134 (Fla.1975)); see also Lightbourne v. State, 438 So.2d 380, 385 (Fla. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1051, 104 S.Ct. 1330, 79 L.Ed.2d 725 (1......
-
Tascano v. State, KK-22
...v. Terry, 336 So.2d 65 (Fla.1976); Huckeba v. State, 322 So.2d 30 (Fla.1975); Lavatt v. State, 316 So.2d 261 (Fla.1975); Dorminey v. State, 314 So.2d 134 (Fla.1975); Winston v. State, 308 So.2d 40 (Fla.1975); Golson v. State, 353 So.2d 195 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1977); MacMainor v. State, 328 So.2......
-
State v. Terry
...3.840 1 The rule decided in Johnson, supra, has been followed by this Court in Winston v. State, 308 So.2d 40 (Fla.1975); Dorminey v. State, 314 So.2d 134 (Fla.1975) and Lavatt v. State, 316 So.2d 261 (Fla.1975). Also by the District Courts of Appeal in Boykin v. State, 305 So.2d 831 (Fla.A......