Case Name: Craig B. ANDERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1997-06-20
Citations: 697 So. 2d 878
Docket Number: No. 96-2265
Parties: Craig B. ANDERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: SHARP, W., J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 697
Pages: 878–880

Head Matter:
Craig B. ANDERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 96-2265.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
June 20, 1997.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 5, 1997.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Andrea J. Surette, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Roberta J. Tylke, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beaeh, for Appel-lee.

Opinion:
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
GRIFFIN, Judge.
Upon review of appellant's motion for rehearing and further consideration of the issue presented on appeal, we withdraw our prior opinion and issue the following opinion in its stead.
Craig B. Anderson was convicted of burglary of an occupied conveyance. During jury selection, the assistant state attorney asked the judge whether Anderson should not be at the bench during jury strikes. The judge responded, "Not unless he wants to be." Anderson was not brought to the bench nor did the judge ascertain whether he knowingly waived his right to be there.
We are bound to reverse the conviction of appellant in this case based on the rule announced in Coney v. State, 653 So.2d 1009 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 116 S.Ct. 315, 133 L.Ed.2d 218 (1995). Coney was issued on January 5, 1995 and became final on April 27, 1995. This case was tried on June 10, 1996. The rule announced in Coney required the trial judge either to certify through proper inquiry that the defendant had made a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of his right to be present at the bench during the challenging of the jury or that he had acquiesced in the strikes after they were made. This is a formality not observed by the trial court in this case, and Coney mandates reversal. Unlike Coney, where no preemptories were exercised, or Goney v. State, 691 So.2d 1133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), where the court inquired of the defendant about his satisfaction with the jury, in the present case, five jurors were excused and no inquiry was made of the defendant. We cannot find harmless error.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
SHARP, W., J., concurs.
HARRIS, J., dissents, with opinion.