Case Name: Rickie Renoried MATHIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1996-11-13
Citations: 683 So. 2d 582
Docket Number: No. 94-2464
Parties: Rickie Renoried MATHIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: MINER, ALLEN, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 683
Pages: 582–583

Head Matter:
Rickie Renoried MATHIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 94-2464.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Nov. 13, 1996.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 27, 1996.
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender; Raymond Dix, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General; Vincent Altieri, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Opinion:
WEBSTER, Judge.
In this direct criminal appeal, we affirm appellant's conviction and sentence. Only one issue merits discussion.
Appellant asserts that he is entitled to a new trial because, although present in the courtroom during jury selection, he was not physically present at a bench conference during which jury challenges were exercised. However, appellant's trial took place before release of the opinion in Coney v. State, 653 So.2d 1009 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 116 S.Ct. 315, 133 L.Ed.2d 218 (1995). Accordingly, Coney is inapplicable. Lett v. State, 668 So.2d 1094 (Fla. 1st DCA), review granted, 677 So.2d 840 (Fla.1996). Pursuant to the rule which preceded that announced in Coney, appellant's rights were not violated. Francis v. State, 413 So.2d 1175 (Fla.1982). Moreover, the burden is on appellant to establish the existence of reversible error. E.g., Moore v. State, 504 So.2d 1311 (Fla. 1st DCA) (claim that reversible error occurred because defense counsel was not present when trial court responded to jury question supported by nothing more than speculation where record was silent on issue), review denied, 513 So.2d 1062 (Fla.1987). We have been unable to find anything in the record to support appellant's contention that he was not present at the bench conference during which challenges were exercised. Accordingly, on this record, even if Coney were applicable, appellant would not be entitled to relief.
AFFIRMED.
MINER, ALLEN, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.