Case Name: Vernon AMOS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1997-05-14
Citations: 695 So. 2d 411
Docket Number: No. 95-0245
Parties: Vernon AMOS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: GLICKSTEIN, FARMER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 695
Pages: 411–411

Head Matter:
Vernon AMOS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 95-0245.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
May 14, 1997.
Bert Winkler, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Sarah B. Mayer, Michelle A. Konig and Melynda L. Melear, Assistant Attorneys General, West Palm Beach, for ap-pellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Vernon Amos appeals his numerous convictions involving several victims: two counts of first-degree murder; three counts of robbery; and one count of attempted first-degree murder. We affirm all of the convictions except the last above-mentioned, which we reverse and remand for a new trial on attempted first-degree premeditated murder for the same reasons recited in Spencer v. State, 693 So.2d 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), which case concerned the codefendant of appellant.
This appeal arises from the fifth trial in this ease. The first trial's convictions and resulting death sentence of appellant were reversed due to a special districting jury selection process that resulted in an unconstitutional systematic exclusion of a significant portion of the black population from the jury pool. Amos v. State, 545 So.2d 1352 (Fla.1989). The second trial ended in mistrial due to a hung jury. Appellant's third trial resulted in another hung jury. The fourth trial's convictions and resulting death sentence of appellant were reversed due to several errors at trial. Amos v. State, 618 So.2d 157 (Fla.1993). Upon appellant's convictions in his fifth trial, which is the subject of this appeal, appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Appellant has raised nine issues, eight of which we find not to be persuasive. On the ninth issue, we reverse and remand as indicated above.
GLICKSTEIN, FARMER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.