CURTIS BELL HOFMEISTER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Curtis Bell Hofmeister was charged with felony marijuana possession. He moved to suppress evidence and objected to trial based on the state's alleged discovery violations. The court denied both motions, and Hofmeister pled nolo contendere with a conditional appeal. The appellate court affirmed both denials, holding that the search was justified under Terry v. Ohio and that the continuance motion was not dispositive of the case.
The court affirmed both denials. The warrantless search was justified under Terry v. Ohio and Florida law because sufficient facts established a lawful stop and search of the vehicle. The objection to trial, construed as a motion for continuance, was not preserved for appeal because it was not dispositive of the case, as a conditional nolo contendere plea may only be reserved for dispositive legal issues.
[1] A stop is justified under Terry v. …
[2] A defendant may object to the introduction of evidence at trial based on the state's violation of discovery rules, requiring the state to demonstrate no prejudice to the…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We find that there was testimony that established sufficient facts to justify a stop pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) and Section 901.151, Florida Statutes; and to justify the subsequent warrantless search of the vehicle.”
Establishes the court's reasoning for upholding the search as lawful under Terry and Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHofmeister was charged with felony possession of marijuana under Florida law. He filed a demand for discovery and a motion to suppress evidence. After…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Felony Possession Of Marijuana cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
Appellant was charged with felony possession of marijuana in violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes. He initially pled not guilty, filed a demand for discovery pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(a), and filed a motion to suppress the evidence. The prosecutor filed a response to the discovery demand which stated that a Florida Department of Criminal Law Enforcement (FDCLE) report would be furnished upon its receipt by the state attorney’s office.
After a hearing on the motion to suppress, the trial court denied the motion. The trial was set for that same day. Appellant then orally made an “objection to trial” on the ground that the state had violated the rules of criminal procedure by failing to send the appellant a copy of the FDCLE report. After hearing argument on this motion, the trial court denied it.
Appellant then withdrew his plea of not guilty and pled nolo contendere, specifically reserving the right to appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress and his objection to trial. Subsequent to judgment and sentencing, appellant brought this appeal seeking review of those two rulings.
We find that there was testimony that established sufficient facts to justify a stop pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) and Section 901.151, Florida Statutes; and to justify the subsequent warrantless search of the vehicle. Therefore, we affirm the order denying the motion to suppress the evidence.
The appellant could have gone to trial and objected to an attempt by the state to offer the FDCLE report on the basis of the state’s violation of the discovery rule. This would have initiated an inquiry by the court into the circumstances surrounding the breach, with the state having the burden of showing that there was no prejudice to the defendant. Cumbie v. State, 345 So. 2d 1061 (Fla.1977); Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971). Instead, appellant made the objection to trial, which we construe as a motion for continuance. We do not believe the denial of that motion has been preserved for appeal. A conditional nolo contendere plea made pursuant to State v. Ashby, 245 So. 2d 225 (Fla.1971), is permissible only if the legal issue to be appealed is dispositive of the case. Brown v. State, 376 So. 2d 382 (Fla.1979). The denial of the motion for continuance was not dispositive of this case. Therefore, we also affirm the denial of the “objection to trial.”
AFFIRMED.
ORFINGER, J., and WATSON, RICHARD O., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Eladio Alfonso, 478 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…secution, as the offending party, had the burden of proof in the trial court to show that the defendants had not been prejudiced by the prosecution’s discovery violation. Hill v. State, 406 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); see also Hofmeister v. State, 381 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 388 So. 2d 1114 (Fla.1980); Brey v. State, 382 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Moreover, on appeal, the prosecution had the burden of demonstrating that the trial court abused its discretion in its choice of sanctions.…
Authorities Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968)
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- State v. Ashby, 245 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1971)
- Brown v. State, 376 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 1979)
- Cumbie v. State, 345 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1977)