From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tanner v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Jan 22, 1999
724 So. 2d 156 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

Summary

finding any error in inviting jury questioning harmless where questions were not prejudicial to the outcome of the trial

Summary of this case from Jimenez v. State

Opinion

No. 97-4169.

December 17, 1998. Rehearing Denied January 22, 1999.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Duval County, Hugh A. Carithers, Jr., Judge.

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.

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.

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.

ERVIN and LAWRENCE, JJ., and McDONALD, PARKER LEE, Senior Judge, concur.


Summaries of

Tanner v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Jan 22, 1999
724 So. 2d 156 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

finding any error in inviting jury questioning harmless where questions were not prejudicial to the outcome of the trial

Summary of this case from Jimenez v. State

finding any error in inviting juror questioning harmless where questions asked of the witnesses were not prejudicial to the outcome of the trial

Summary of this case from McGlocklin v. State

finding any error in inviting juror questioning harmless where questions asked of the witnesses were not prejudicial to the outcome of the trial

Summary of this case from McGlocklin v. State
Case details for

Tanner v. State

Case Details

Full title:Michael Jerome TANNER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Jan 22, 1999

Citations

724 So. 2d 156 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

Citing Cases

State v. Covington

See Ferrer v. State, 718 So.2d 822, 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). By entering the order at issue, the trial court…

McGlocklin v. State

In any event, the question and answer were harmless under the circumstances of this case. See Tanner v.…