Harris v. State, No. 98-00887.

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Writing for the CourtCAMPBELL.
Citation742 So.2d 835
PartiesRobert HARRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Decision Date10 September 1999
Docket NumberNo. 98-00887.

742 So.2d 835

Robert HARRIS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee

No. 98-00887.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 10, 1999.


742 So.2d 836
Jeffrey Sullivan, Bartow, for Appellant

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee and Patricia E. Davenport, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

CAMPBELL, Judge.

Appellant, Robert Harris, challenges his convictions on four counts of committing a lewd and lascivious assault on a child under sixteen. He raises three issues on appeal. We find none of them to constitute reversible error and affirm.

Appellant was an adult counselor in the SAFE program at the Gulf Coast Marine Institute, where he came into contact with the fifteen-year-old victim, A.C., who was a student at the Institute.

In his first issue, Appellant argues that the trial court failed to conduct a proper inquiry pursuant to Nelson v. State, 274 So.2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). We disagree. A Nelson inquiry is required where the defendant alleges that his counsel is ineffective and asks to discharge him. A review of the record reveals that Appellant was not dissatisfied with his attorney until the court denied defense counsel's motion for a continuance that was filed on the day of trial. On the day that trial was scheduled, Appellant's counsel, an assistant public defender, made a written and oral motion for a continuance, alleging essentially that he had not properly prepared for trial, had not completed discovery, and had been misinformed that trial would probably not begin on that day. After listening to argument from both sides, the court concluded that defense counsel had had ample time to prepare for trial, especially given the fact that counsel had not been out of town the week before, as originally anticipated, thus giving counsel additional time to prepare. The trial

742 So.2d 837
judge made the following specific findings regarding the progress of the case
The arrest of the Defendant occurred on May 22nd. Counsel for the Defendant was appointed on June 2nd. Arraignment was scheduled on June 13th. The arraignment occurred on June 13th, and trial was set for September 10th. Discovery request was made on June 26th. Response to discovery was furnished by the State on July 8th. The first depositions in the case were scheduled on August 25th, none of which were the victim, all of which were police officers—all of whom were police officers. On August 18th, a supplemental discovery was filed with no additional witnesses. On September 4th, other depositions were scheduled, again none of the victim. On September 10th, the case was continued to December 8th on stipulation. On October 9th, more depositions were taken, again none of the victim. On December 4th, the case was continued to February 2nd on stipulation. Depositions were then taken again on January 29th.
Ample time has been afforded the Defense to prepare.
With respect to the Defendant's allegations in paragraph 9, I would only say that it was represented to the Court that defense counsel would be out of the state during the first week of the trial term. Based on that representation I had indicated that it would be likely that the Robert Harris case would not go to trial. I learned this morning that the defense counsel in fact was not out of state, was in fact in—at work all of last week, and had ample time to prepare the case for trial.

When the court...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Morris v. State, No. 1D99-4286.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 29 mai 2001
    ...including vaginal penetration by the defendant's penis or its "union with the vagina of the minor victim," Harris v. State, 742 So.2d 835, 838 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Timot v. State, 738 So.2d 387, 390 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), and digital, see Ready v. State, 636 So.2d 67, 68 (Fla. 2d DCA......
  • State v. Knighton, No. SC16–1426
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • 1 février 2018
    ...on the ground that it expressly and directly conflicts with the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal in Harris v. State, 742 So.2d 835 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), on a question of law. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUNDKnighton was c......
  • Tucker v. State, No. 2D98-4935.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 10 mars 2000
    ...another appointed public defender. Such tactics are often employed by defendants to stall the inevitable. See, e.g., Harris v. State, 742 So.2d 835 (Fla. 2d DCA 8. In Burgos v. State, 667 So.2d 1030 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), this court determined that the trial court's failure to conduct a Nelson......
  • Gonzalez v. State, No. SC94154.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • 10 mai 2001
    ...must "vitiate the trial or so poison the minds of the jurors that Appellant did not receive a fair trial." Harris v. State, 742 So.2d 835, 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); See King v. State, 623 So.2d 486 In Bertolotti v. State, 476 So.2d 130, 134 (Fla.1985), this Court outlined the proper......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Morris v. State, No. 1D99-4286.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 29 mai 2001
    ...including vaginal penetration by the defendant's penis or its "union with the vagina of the minor victim," Harris v. State, 742 So.2d 835, 838 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Timot v. State, 738 So.2d 387, 390 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), and digital, see Ready v. State, 636 So.2d 67, 68 (Fla. 2d DCA......
  • State v. Knighton, No. SC16–1426
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • 1 février 2018
    ...on the ground that it expressly and directly conflicts with the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal in Harris v. State, 742 So.2d 835 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), on a question of law. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUNDKnighton was c......
  • Tucker v. State, No. 2D98-4935.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 10 mars 2000
    ...another appointed public defender. Such tactics are often employed by defendants to stall the inevitable. See, e.g., Harris v. State, 742 So.2d 835 (Fla. 2d DCA 8. In Burgos v. State, 667 So.2d 1030 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), this court determined that the trial court's failure to conduct a Nelson......
  • Gonzalez v. State, No. SC94154.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • 10 mai 2001
    ...must "vitiate the trial or so poison the minds of the jurors that Appellant did not receive a fair trial." Harris v. State, 742 So.2d 835, 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); See King v. State, 623 So.2d 486 In Bertolotti v. State, 476 So.2d 130, 134 (Fla.1985), this Court outlined the proper......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT