Case ID: so2d_350/html/0349-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. DAUKSCH, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Robert James MAGUIRE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 75-2282.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    March 25, 1977.
    Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Craig S. Barnard, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
    Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Paul H. Zacks, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

Upon review and consideration of the briefs, record on appeal and oral argument we are of the opinion that no reversible error has been demonstrated. We have carefully considered and reject the retroactive application of the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Florida in Roberts v. State, 335 So.2d 285 (Fla.1976), adopting the so called “Lyles” rule. In this regard, we agree with the reasoning and rationale of the Third District in Williams v. State, La.App., 346 So.2d 554, opinion filed February 8, 1977; but see, Ringgo v. State, 339 So.2d 293 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). Accordingly, the judgment and sentence are affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

MAGER, C. J., and ALDERMAN, J., concur.

DAUKSCH, J., dissents, with opinion.

DAUKSCH, Judge,

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent for the reason I do not read Roberts v. State, as cited, as being prospective only. Also, without Roberts there is enough to reverse. The Appellant here timely requested an instruction to the jury concerning the consequences of a not guilty — insanity verdict. The court denied the instruction and gave an instruction as to the consequences of a guilty verdict and an instruction on probation and parole. Appellant presented psychiatrists and a psychologist in support of his insanity defense and showed a prior history of psychiatric problems. It is presumed everyone knows the consequences of a not guilty verdict and the jury was instructed on the consequences of a guilty verdict. So there should have been an instruction as to the consequences of a not guilty — insanity verdict to keep the jury from logically thinking it might turn loose an insane killer.