TEODULA PAZ SALOMON, RAMON SALOMON AND JUAN JACINTO RATO, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE 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.
Appellants challenged wiretap intercept orders used in a lottery investigation, but the appellate court affirmed the convictions because critical wiretap documents were absent from the record, making appellate review impossible.
The court could not consider appellants' challenges to the wiretap orders because the critical documents were absent from the appellate record. The appellants failed to demonstrate standing to challenge the earlier wiretap order or that its results were connected to the interceptions involving them.
[1] A reviewing court cannot consider arguments concerning the validity of wiretap intercept orders when the record on appeal contains neither the orders nor the applications…
[2] A party challenging the validity of an earlier wiretap order must demonstrate its relevance to the interceptions that involved them and establish standing to challenge th…
Previewing 2 of 3 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 are powerless to consider these arguments, however, because the record contains neither the orders in question nor the applications and affidavits which supported their issuance.”
Establishes that without the wiretap documents in the appellate record, the court cannot review the validity of the wiretap orders.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTeodula Paz Salomon, Ramon Salomon, and Juan Jacinto Rato were investigated and apparently convicted based on monitoring of their lottery activities p…
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.
SCHWARTZ, Judge.
These cases recur for consideration by this court pursuant to the order of transfer in Salomon v. State, 381 So. 2d 705 (Fla.1980). The appellants’ primary contentions concern the alleged invalidity of wiretap intercept orders which resulted in the monitoring of their lottery activities. See the related case of Cuba v. State, 362 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 378 So. 2d 344, 347 (Fla.1979). We are powerless to consider these arguments, however, because the record contains neither the orders in question nor the applications and affidavits which supported their issuance.1 Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1979); O’Steen v. State, 92 Fla. 1062, 111 So. 725 (1926). Although the documents relating to an earlier wiretap order which supposedly initiated the entire investigation are before us, there is no showing either that the results of the interceptions authorized by that order, which did not themselves involve the present defendants, were related to the later ones which did, or even that the appellants have standing to challenge the initial order. See United States v. Scasino, 513 F. 2d 47 (5th Cir. 1975). So far as we know from the only source we may consider, the record, the earlier tap was totally irrelevant to the appellants’ ease.
We have carefully considered the appellants’ remaining points and find no error. The judgments below are therefore
Affirmed.
. Despite their extensive efforts during a period of more than two years since the notices of appeal were filed, the appellants have been unable to secure and supplement the record with these documents. There is therefore no purpose to be served by granting their request for still further time to attempt to do so. While these appeals are governed by the 1962 Revision of the Florida Appellate Rules, even Fla.R. App.P. 9.200(f)(2), which requires giving “an opportunity to supplement the record,” has already been more than satisfied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Whetstone v. State, 415 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…PER CURIAM. The judgment is affirmed for lack of an appropriate record. Salomon v. State, 385 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). On the State’s appeal, the sentence is vacated and the case remanded for imposition of the mandatory minimum sentence required by section 893.135, Florida Statutes (1981), and State v. Benitez, 395 So. 2d 514 (Fla.1981), which wa…
Authorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
- O'Steen v. State, 111 So. 725 (Fla. 1926)
- United States v. Scasino, 513 F.2d 47 (5th Cir. 1975)
- Nery S. Cuba and Tomas Rafael Llamas-Almaguer v. State, 362 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Teodula Paz Salomon v. State, 381 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 1980)