Title: State Of Florida v. Osberto Dejesus Vargas
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC05-1125
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: August 31, 2006

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
_____________ 
 
No. SC05-1125 
_____________ 
 
 
STATE OF FLORIDA, 
Petitioner, 
 
vs. 
 
OSBERTO DEJESUS VARGAS, 
Respondent. 
 
[August 31, 2006] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
We have for review Vargas v. State, 902 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), 
disapproved by, Jones v. State, 923 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 2006), in which the Third 
District Court of Appeal certified conflict with the decision of the Fourth District 
Court of Appeal in Jones v. State, 870 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), approved, 
923 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 2006).  At the time the Third District issued its decision in 
Vargas, Jones was pending review in this Court.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, 
§ 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. 
The petition for review is granted.  On the authority of our decision in Jones 
v. State, 923 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 2006), the decision under review is quashed, and this 
matter is remanded to the Third District Court of Appeal for reconsideration upon 
application of this Court’s decision in Jones. 
It is so ordered. 
LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur. 
PARIENTE, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion, in which 
ANSTEAD, J., concurs. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
 
 
PARIENTE, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. 
 
I agree with the majority that the Third District Court of Appeal’s decision 
in Vargas v. State, 902 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), should be quashed and the 
case remanded for reconsideration.  As I stated in my dissenting opinion in Jones 
v. State, 923 So. 2d 486, 493-94 (Fla. 2006), “[t]he standard applied by the Third 
District could be interpreted as requiring reversal whenever any portion of the trial 
transcript is missing and cannot be reconstructed regardless of the nature of the 
omitted proceeding or whether the omitted record is necessary for a complete 
review.”    
However, for the same reasons set forth in my opinion in Jones, I would not 
require that the defendant demonstrate a basis for a claim of prejudicial error.  This 
 
2
requirement, adopted by the Jones majority,1 imposes too great a burden on the 
defendant to demonstrate that a reversible error occurred when the record has been 
lost through no fault of the defendant and cannot be reconstructed.  “A defendant 
who has potential grounds for reversal of a criminal conviction should not be 
penalized when the record of the trial court proceedings is lost in whole or part 
because of circumstances beyond his or her control.”  Jones, 923 So. 2d at 491 
(Pariente, C.J., dissenting).  Accordingly, I would remand this case to the Third 
District to apply the test enunciated in my dissent in Jones, which would “require a 
new trial if the appellant can point with specificity to potential reversible error and 
the State cannot establish there is no reasonable possibility error occurred.”  Id.      
ANSTEAD, J., concurs. 
 
 
 
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal - Certified 
Direct Conflict of Decisions 
 
 
Third District - Case No. 3D03-1585 
 
 
(Dade County) 
 
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida and Angel L. Fleming, 
Assistant Attorney General, Miami, Florida, 
 
 
for Petitioner 
 
                                          
 
 
1.  See 923 So. 2d at 489 (“[T]his Court requires that the defendant 
demonstrate that there is a basis for a claim that the missing transcript would 
reflect matters which prejudice the defendant.”).  
 
3
Bennett J. Brummer, Public Defender, and Robert Kalter, Assistant Public 
Defender, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, Florida, 
 
 
for Respondent 
 
 
4