From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bassett v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Jan 28, 1981
392 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

Opinion

No. 80-386.

January 28, 1981.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Volusia County, Norton Josephson, Acting Circuit Judge.

Flem K. Whited, III, of Hart Whited, Holly Hill, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Edward M. Chew, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.


After the jury retired to deliberate, appellant's trial counsel objected to the failure of the judge to charge the jury on the maximum and minimum sentences which could be imposed for the offense for which appellant was on trial. The trial judge then directed the record to show that the defendants requested the maximum penalty be given and that the court denied that request. In Murray v. State, 378 So.2d 111 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), and Williams v. State, 378 So.2d 902 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), this court held that the failure to give this instruction when requested is error, but not reversible error. Subsequently the Florida Supreme Court, in Tascano v. State, 393 So.2d 540 (Fla. 1980) held the rule to be mandatory and a failure to instruct as required to be reversible error. A rehearing in Tascano is still pending.

However, we do not believe Tascano controls the disposition of this case because, while Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.390(a) requires such an instruction, another subsection of the same rule, 3.390(d), prohibits the appeal of a failure to give an instruction unless there was an objection, before the jury retired to consider its verdict, distinctly stating the matter and grounds of the objection. We realize, as did the Second District Court of Appeal in Kelly v. State, 389 So.2d 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), that this is a technical application of this rule. However, subdivision (d) of this rule is as specific and clear as subdivision (a) and it is not unfair for one who claims the advantage of the first part to be required to strictly comply with the latter part and to make a proper and timely objection.

Accordingly, appellant's appointed counsel's motion to withdraw is granted, Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and the judgment and sentence is

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bassett v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Jan 28, 1981
392 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)
Case details for

Bassett v. State

Case Details

Full title:THEORDORE AGUSTUS BASSETT, A/K/A EARL LEE SMITH, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Jan 28, 1981

Citations

392 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

Citing Cases

Williams v. State

We reject the State's contention that Tascano applies prospectively except for Mr. Tascano. Post- Tascano…

Preston v. State

We fail to find in the record any objection to the trial court's refusal to give the requested instruction,…