Case Name: Edward Earl MEEKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1981-01-28
Citations: 400 So. 2d 465
Docket Number: No. 79-1374/T4-614
Parties: Edward Earl MEEKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: DAUKSCH, C. J., ORFINGER and SHARP, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 400
Pages: 465–466

Head Matter:
Edward Earl MEEKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 79-1374/T4-614.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Jan. 28, 1981.
On Rehearing April 8, 1981.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Catheleen Brady, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Edward M. Chew, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dayto-na Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We must reverse this case on the authority of Tascano v. State, 393 So.2d 540 (Fla.1980) (rehearing pending), and remand it for a new trial because those persons "who have preserved this point on appeal, receive the benefit on this interpretation of the rule." Tascano. The interpretation referred to in Tascano is one which says if an accused at trial requests a jury instruction in regard to the penalties he could receive, it is reversible error for the trial judge not to so instruct. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.390(a). There was a timely objection made to the failure to give the instruction. Kelly v. State, 389 So.2d 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). The Florida Supreme Court made this applicable even to cases pending on appeal. It is not applicable to persons who did not preserve it for appeal nor for those who did raise it on appeal but whose appeal has been concluded.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DAUKSCH, C. J., ORFINGER and SHARP, JJ., concur.