Timothy Scott Young v. State of Florida

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
TIMOTHY SCOTT YOUNG, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
Appellant, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
v. CASE NO. 1D15-1972
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________/
Opinion filed January 25, 2016.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County.
Ross M. Goodman, Judge.
Glenn M. Swiatek, Shalimar, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Angela R. Hensel, Assistant Attorney
General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
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 DCA 1967); Seaboard
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.
2