Lambrix v. Dugger, No. 71287

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM; EHRLICH
Citation529 So.2d 1110,13 Fla. L. Weekly 472
Docket NumberNo. 71287
Decision Date18 August 1988
Parties13 Fla. L. Weekly 472 Cary Michael LAMBRIX, Petitioner, v. Richard L. DUGGER, Secretary, Department of Corrections, Respondent.

Page 1110

529 So.2d 1110
13 Fla. L. Weekly 472
Cary Michael LAMBRIX, Petitioner,
v.
Richard L. DUGGER, Secretary, Department of Corrections, Respondent.
No. 71287.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Aug. 18, 1988.

Cary Michael Lambrix, Starke, pro. per.

Larry Helm Spalding, Capital Collateral Representative and Billy H. Nolas, Staff Atty., Office of the Capital Collateral Representative, Tallahassee, for petitioner.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Peggy A. Quince and Kim W. Munch, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tampa, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Cary Michael Lambrix, a state prisoner under a sentence of death, petitions this court for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, §§ 3(b)(1), (9), Fla. Const.

Lambrix was convicted in the 1983 dual murder of two dinner guests. His conviction and sentence of death were affirmed by this Court in Lambrix v. State, 494 So.2d 1143 (Fla.1986). The thrust of his petition 1 is that his appellate counsel was

Page 1111

ineffective in failing to argue numerous issues. We find most of these arguments are frivolous or were previously decided adversely to petitioner, but there are two which merit discussion.

First, there is a cluster of issues arising out of the jury selection process. Petitioner says appellate counsel should have argued: that it was error for the trial court to deny a motion for individual and sequestered voir dire concerning the effect of pretrial publicity; that it was error for the defendant not to be present during a part of voir dire; and that it was error for the court to have approved certain stipulations in his absence while the jury was being selected. The first argument is without merit, as the decision to have an individual and sequestered voir dire is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the record reveals no abuse of that discretion. Davis v. State, 461 So.2d 67 (Fla.1984), cert. denied, 473 U.S. 913, 105 S.Ct. 3540, 87 L.Ed.2d 663 (1985).

The second and third arguments derive from an unusual situation. The state had finished its preliminary questioning of sixteen potential jurors when the court called a recess. During the break Gary Clemons, one of the jurors who had not yet been questioned, 2 approached petitioner's lawyer about a potential problem; counsel sent him to see the prosecutor, who informed the judge. Clemons was questioned by the court and counsel for both sides. He said he had been petitioner's cellmate in the county jail for two or three weeks and had discussed the case with him. Clemons also said he had told his wife, who was also in the venire, of the conversation and had given her his opinion of the case. Mr. and Mrs. Clemons were excused without objection. Also during this break some stipulations as to identity were entered into between the defense and the state.

Petitioner says that he was not in chambers when the two potential jurors were excused, and thus argues that he was involuntarily absent during a critical stage of his trial. He also argues that since he had been named co-counsel, his absence was an even greater error, and appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to argue this point on direct appeal. The state argues that there was no objection by defense counsel, and thus any appellate argument on this issue was waived and was not subject to appeal. In rebuttal petitioner argues that since voir dire is a critical stage no objection was necessary to preserve the points for appeal.

We have reviewed the record and we conclude that petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief on this issue. First, while the jury selection process had begun, Clemons and his wife were not yet part...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 practice notes
  • Lambrix v. Sec'y, No. 13–11917.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • June 26, 2014
    ...corpus. Ultimately, the Florida Supreme Court, in two separate opinions, denied Lambrix's state habeas petitions. See Lambrix v. Dugger, 529 So.2d 1110, 1112 (Fla.1988) (denying original state habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel); Lambrix v. State, 559 So.2d......
  • Lambrix v. Singletary, 965658
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • May 12, 1997
    ...v. State, 494 So.2d 1143 (Fla.1986). After the Florida courts denied his repeated efforts to obtain collateral relief, Lambrix v. Dugger, 529 So.2d 1110 (Fla.1988); Lambrix v. State, 534 So.2d 1151 (Fla.1988); Lambrix v. State, 559 So.2d 1137 (Fla.1990), Lambrix filed a petition for a writ ......
  • Lambrix v. State, No. SC16–8
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • March 9, 2017
    ...the jury was being selected; and (4) the trial court erred in not instructing the jury as to voluntary intoxication. Lambrix v. Dugger , 529 So.2d 1110, 1111–12 (Fla. 1988). This Court denied relief. Id. at 1112.In addition, either through counsel or in a pro se capacity, Lambrix has filed ......
  • Lambrix v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., No. 16-10251
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • March 15, 2017
    ...1251. Ultimately, the Florida Supreme Court, in two separate opinions, denied Lambrix's state habeas petitions. See Lambrix v. Dugger , 529 So.2d 1110, 1112 (Fla. 1988) (denying original state habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel); Lambrix v. State , 559 So.2......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
20 cases
  • Lambrix v. Sec'y, No. 13–11917.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • June 26, 2014
    ...corpus. Ultimately, the Florida Supreme Court, in two separate opinions, denied Lambrix's state habeas petitions. See Lambrix v. Dugger, 529 So.2d 1110, 1112 (Fla.1988) (denying original state habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel); Lambrix v. State, 559 So.2d......
  • Lambrix v. Singletary, 965658
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • May 12, 1997
    ...v. State, 494 So.2d 1143 (Fla.1986). After the Florida courts denied his repeated efforts to obtain collateral relief, Lambrix v. Dugger, 529 So.2d 1110 (Fla.1988); Lambrix v. State, 534 So.2d 1151 (Fla.1988); Lambrix v. State, 559 So.2d 1137 (Fla.1990), Lambrix filed a petition for a writ ......
  • Lambrix v. State, No. SC16–8
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • March 9, 2017
    ...the jury was being selected; and (4) the trial court erred in not instructing the jury as to voluntary intoxication. Lambrix v. Dugger , 529 So.2d 1110, 1111–12 (Fla. 1988). This Court denied relief. Id. at 1112.In addition, either through counsel or in a pro se capacity, Lambrix has filed ......
  • Lambrix v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., No. 16-10251
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • March 15, 2017
    ...1251. Ultimately, the Florida Supreme Court, in two separate opinions, denied Lambrix's state habeas petitions. See Lambrix v. Dugger , 529 So.2d 1110, 1112 (Fla. 1988) (denying original state habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel); Lambrix v. State , 559 So.2......
  • 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