Case Name: Timothy Scott YOUNG, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2016-01-25
Citations: 183 So. 3d 1251
Docket Number: No. 1D15-1972
Parties: Timothy Scott YOUNG, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: LEWIS, ROWE, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 183
Pages: 1251–1251

Head Matter:
Timothy Scott YOUNG, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 1D15-1972.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Jan. 25, 2016.
Glenn M. Swiatek, Shalimar, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Angela R. Hensel, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal of a conviction for trafficking, possession of controlled substance, and possession of less than 20 grams of a controlled substance, Timothy Scott Young raises, through counsel, a single issue: whether fundamental error resulted from defense counsel's explanation of the reasonable doubt standard during jury selection. We will not comment on whether defense counsel did misstate the reasonable doubt standard, for even if defense counsel did misstate the standard, such an error cannot be raised on direct appeal. Appointed appellate counsel asserts that he is not raising a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. But, he fails to explain how the matter raised is cognizable on a direct appeal. It is a very basic premise of appellate jurisprudence that a party cannot seek relief on direct appeal for an error committed by the party. See Escambia County Elec. Light & Power Co. v. Sutherland, 61 Fla. 167, 55 So. 83 (1911); North Shore Hospital, Inc. v. Luzi, 194 So.2d 63 (Fla. 3d DGA 1967); Sea board Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Hendrickson, 212 So.2d 901 (Fla.1968); Holmes v. School Bd. of Orange County, 301 So.2d 145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Martinez v. Pereira, 431 So.2d 326 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Norton v. State, 709 So.2d 87 (Fla.1997); Goodwin v. State, 751 So.2d 537 (Fla.1999); Sheffield v. Superior Ins. Co., 800 So.2d 197 (Fla.2001); Morgan v. State, 146 So.3d 508 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014); et al. "Otherwise a litigant may inject error into the record and take advantage of it which he should not be permitted to do." Roe v. Henderson, 139 Fla. 386, 389, 190 So. 618, 620 (Fla.1939).
AFFIRMED.
LEWIS, ROWE, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.