From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Elmore v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Apr 25, 2001
782 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

Opinion

No. 4D00-1214.

Opinion filed April 25, 2001.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Hubert R. Lindsey, Judge; L.T. Case No. 99-2670 CFA02.

Joy A. Bartmon of The Law Offices of Bartmon Bartmon, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melynda L. Melear, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.


We find no error in appellant's convictions on the three charges on which he waived a trial by jury. After he had waived a jury for those charges, however, a new charge was added and tried nonjury, without a waiver for the new charge. We can understand why the trial court neglected to obtain a waiver, as he was advised by defense counsel that adding the new charge at the last minute would be no problem; however, the waiver of a jury trial must be by the defendant and in writing. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.260. State v. Upton, 658 So.2d 86 (Fla. 1995). We therefore reverse for a new trial the conviction on the fourth count, alleging assault of Alex Cox with a firearm, but affirm the other convictions. We have not considered appellant's challenges to the voluntariness of his waivers of jury trial on those charges, as they should be raised by rule 3.850. Chacon v. State, 735 So.2d 569, 570 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).

DELL, STONE and KLEIN, JJ., Concur.


Summaries of

Elmore v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Apr 25, 2001
782 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)
Case details for

Elmore v. State

Case Details

Full title:PRESTON ELMORE, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Apr 25, 2001

Citations

782 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

Citing Cases

People v. Hernandez

Rather, it appears that, consistent with the principles discussed above, courts simply find it axiomatic that…