Smith v. State
| Decision Date | 14 March 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-2063,87-2063 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 678 Lee SMITH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Robert Kalter, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Julie S. Thornton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and FERGUSON, JJ.
Subsequent to the reversal of his convictions after a jury trial for crimes occurring on October 31, 1983, Smith v. State, 496 So.2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), the defendant, unrepresented by an attorney, waived a jury and went to a bench trial. He was again convicted of second degree murder with a firearm, attempted second degree murder and the possession of a firearm in the commission of the second degree murder and again appeals.
The appellant's first point contends that his jury waiver was invalid. We find to the contrary. The presumption of an ineffective waiver which arises because Smith was counselless at the time, see Enrique v. State, 408 So.2d 635 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), review denied, 418 So.2d 1280 (Fla.1982), was thoroughly dissipated on this record by a lengthy colloquy between the defendant and the trial judge, in which Smith was by far the more active participant, and which affirmatively demonstrated that he was thoroughly conversant--indeed, quite amazingly so--with the vital aspects of his or any decision to forego a jury. Enrique, 408 So.2d at 637 (). In sum, it clearly appears that Smith "freely, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to trial by jury." Enrique, 408 So.2d at 637.
Moreover, contrary to the defendant's present contention, it is not necessary that the trial court make an explicit determination of an effective and knowledgeable waiver at the proceedings below. Under these circumstances, the lower court's acceptance of the waiver sufficiently demonstrated its finding to that effect. See Peterson v. State, 382 So.2d 701 (Fla.1980) ().
We do agree that the conviction for possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony is duplicitous of and may not be permitted to stand in addition to the conviction of the same substantive crime, in this case, second degree murder with a firearm. We have specifically so held in Henderson v. State, 526 So.2d 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), in which we determined that this result is mandated by Carawan v. State, 515 So.2d 161 (Fla.1987). See Brown v. State, 538 So.2d 116 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (Cowart, J., concurring specially).
Moreover, we reject the state's argument that the amendment to section...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State
...(Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Bouie v. State, 540 So.2d 925 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Sarduy v. State, 540 So.2d 203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Smith v. State, 539 So.2d 601 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Williams v. State, 539 So.2d 35 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Jean v. State, 538 So.2d 153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Hurd v. State, 536 ......
-
Gonzalez v. State
...meaningful objection, we conclude that Ramon Gonzalez was not deprived of his right to a fair and impartial jury. See Smith v. State, 539 So.2d 601 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (lengthy colloquy between defendant and trial judge in which defendant affirmatively demonstrated his knowledge of decision ......
-
Sarduy v. State
...under the new statute which would thus violate the ex post facto clauses of the Florida and United States constitutions. Smith v. State, 539 So.2d 601 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Heath v. State, 532 So.2d 9 (Fla. 1st DCA Reversed and remanded for a new trial. 1 Second degree murder is "[t]he unlawf......
-
E.H. v. State, 89-550
...3d DCA 1989); Jones v. State, 546 So.2d 126 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Williams v. State, 539 So.2d 35 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Smith v. State, 539 So.2d 601 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Jean v. State, 538 So.2d 153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Ellison v. State, 538 So.2d 90, 91 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); § 775.021(4), Fla.St......