Tanner v. State, 97-4169
| Citation | 724 So.2d 156 |
| Decision Date | 17 December 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-4169,97-4169 |
| Parties | Michael Jerome TANNER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Glenna Joyce Reeves, Assistant Public Defender, Attorney for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Denise O. Simpson, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, Attorney for Appellee.
Appellant, Michael Jerome Tanner, appeals his convictions and sentences for three counts of armed robbery and one count of aggravated assault. He received a sentence of twenty-years for each of the armed robberies and one five-year sentence for the aggravated assault. The sentences were to run concurrently. Included in the sentence was the requirement of a mandatory minimum three-year incarceration because a firearm was used.1
Appellant claims reversible error because the trial judge permitted the jury to submit questions to him to be asked of the witnesses. We find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in the procedure used. See Ferrara v. State, 101 So.2d 797 (Fla.1958). Furthermore, any error by the trial court in inviting juror questioning was harmless under the circumstances of this case because none of the questions asked of the witnesses were erroneous or prejudicial to the outcome of the trial. See Bradford v. State, 722 So.2d 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); see also United States v. Thompson, 76 F.3d 442 (2d Cir. 1996). Furthermore, we find the evidence sufficient to support the jury's verdicts on all counts and reject all other claims for reversal.
Accordingly, we affirm the convictions and sentences.
1. The trial judge included the aggravated assault conviction along with the robbery convictions as a basis for the minimum sentence. This was error because the jury failed to include in its verdict a finding that a firearm was used on this count. See State v. Mancino, 714 So.2d 429 (Fla.1998). This does not affect the minimum sentence because of the remaining grounds.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coates v. State
...See Henderson v. State, 792 So.2d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Patterson v. State, 725 So.2d 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Tanner v. State, 724 So.2d 156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Bradford v. State, 722 So.2d 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Pierre v. State, 601 So.2d 1309 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Scheel v. State, 3......
-
Patterson v. State
...of witnesses so long as the trial court controls the procedure. Watson v. State, 651 So.2d 1159 (Fla.1994). See also, Tanner v. State, 724 So.2d 156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Bradford v. State, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D2577, 722 So.2d 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Pierre v. State, 601 So.2d 1309 (Fla. 4th ......
-
McGlocklin v. State, 3D03-3169.
...was objectionable. In any event, the question and answer were harmless under the circumstances of this case. See Tanner v. State, 724 So.2d 156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (finding any error in inviting juror questioning harmless where questions asked of the witnesses were not prejudicial to the ou......
-
State v. Covington
...in his or her own courtroom. Owen;Green; and see generally McGlocklin v. State, 907 So.2d 1288 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Tanner v. State, 724 So.2d 156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Black v. State, 630 So.2d 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Petitioner also argues that Judge Dodson's order is contrary to the Flori......
-
Jury questions in criminal cases: neutral arbiters or active interrogators?
...complains that the trial court erred in permitting individual jurors to ask questions of witnesses. We disagree."); Tanner v. State, 724 So. 2d 156, 157 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1998) ("Appellant claims reversible error because the trial judge permitted the jury to submit questions to him to be ask......