Calderon v. State
The Third DCA affirmed a grand theft conviction, rejecting Calderon's claim that the trial court erred by allowing the jury to hear his allegedly privileged plea-negotiation statements under section 90.410 and Rule 3.172(i). Because the recording played to the jury was never transcribed or made part of the appellate record, the court held it could not determine what was actually presented to the jury, and thus the claim was unpreserved for review. The court also took the opportunity to remind trial courts that court reporters must make a good-faith effort to transcribe audio recordings played to juries absent party agreement otherwise, and outlined the two-tiered Robertson test for distinguishing protected plea-negotiation statements from independent factual admissions.
Key facts
- Calderon was convicted of grand theft after a trial court allowed a recording of his statements to be played to the jury, allegedly including privileged plea-negotiation communications.
- Calderon appealed arguing the trial court erred in admitting the recording under Florida's evidence rules protecting plea-negotiation statements, but the recording was never transcribed or made part of the appellate record.
- +1 more key fact with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion offers practical guidance for criminal appellate practice: when a party intends to challenge admission of a recording played to a jury (especially one implicating plea-negotiation privilege), counsel must… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.