ROBERT ANDREW WEISZ, 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.
Robert Weisz appealed his conviction for marijuana possession following a jury trial, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress evidence and motion to discharge based on speedy trial violations. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, finding no reversible error in the suppression ruling or speedy trial analysis.
The trial court properly denied both motions. The defendant waived the absence-of-warrant objection by not raising it at trial, the tape recordings were not admitted due to poor quality so no reversible error resulted, and the defendant waived strict speedy trial requirements by requesting a continuance on the last day of the speedy trial period.
[1] A defendant waives the strict requirements of a speedy trial rule by requesting a continuance on the last day of the speedy trial period.
[2] A defendant cannot raise the issue of the absence of a warrant on appeal if the issue was not objected to at trial.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Defendant did not object to the absence of a warrant at trial and cannot now raise this point.”
Establishes the waiver principle—failure to object at trial precludes appellate challenge on that ground.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWeisz was charged with possession of marijuana in excess of 100 pounds. Police conducted an investigation that included tape recordings secured outsid…
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 Evidentiary Objections cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a conviction after a jury trial for possession of marijuana. Prior to trial, the defendant filed a motion to suppress the marijuana and certain tape recordings growing out of a related police investigation. Defendant also moved for discharge based on speedy trial grounds. The motion to suppress and the motion to discharge were denied. Defendant appeals and we affirm.
On the motion to suppress, defendant asserted the absence of a warrant regarding the marijuana and that the police were acting outside their geographic jurisdiction when they secured the tape recordings.
At trial, the defendant’s objections were not exactly the same as those previously asserted on the motion to suppress. At one point in the trial, counsel seemed to disavow reliance on the grounds previously asserted in the motion to suppress. In any event, the tape recordings were not admitted into evidence because the jury could not understand them due to poor recording quality. Testimony as to the existence of the tapes was heard by the jury, but we conclude this did not result in reversible error if error at all. The objection at trial as to physical evidence was that the total amount of marijuana in question had not been tested. Defendant did not object to the absence of a warrant at trial and cannot now raise this point. Kiddy v. State, 378 So. 2d 1332 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).
We also conclude reversible error has not been demonstrated in regard to the defense arguments on failure to test all of the marijuana. The defendant was charged with possession of marijuana in excess of 100 pounds. The court directed a judgment of acquittal as to the allegation of “in excess of 100 pounds” and the jury returned a verdict of guilty against appellant for possession and delivery of cannabis over five grams. The defendant’s arguments regarding testing of the entire quantity of marijuana (26 bales) constitute harmless error at most.
As to the speedy trial argument, defendant moved for a continuance on November 6, 1978, when the case was set for trial on the last day of the speedy trial time. The defendant now claims that his continuance on that day should be charged to the State. We conclude the trial court correctly found to the contrary. Under the circumstances of this case, the defendant waived the strict requirements of the speedy trial rule. Butterworth v. Fluellen, 389 So. 2d 968 (Fla.1980); Diaz v. Rodriguez, 384 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). The judgment and conviction below is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
MOORE and BERANEK, JJ., and KAP-NER, LEWIS, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alvarez v. State, 400 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…points on appeal have no merit, we grant the motion for rehearing, vacate the opinion filed January 7, 1981, and affirm the judgment and sentence. Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla.1978); Clark v. State, 363 So. 2d 331 (Fla.1978); Weisz v. State, 392 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); German v. State, 379 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), cert. denied, 388 So. 2d 1113 (Fla.1980); Kiddy v. State, 378 So. 2d 1332 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), cert. denied, 388 So. 2d 1115 (Fla.1980). DOWNEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., and FUT…
-
Sims v. State, 402 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…the prosecution was obliged to do, that more than 100 pounds of prohibited material was involved. Purifoy v. State, supra; Blair v. State, 384 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Leavitt v. State, 369 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); see, Weisz v. State, 392 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). There was plainly no direct evidence of this fact — no one weighed the actual cannabis and found that more than 100 pounds registered on the scale. The state was forced to rely entirely on the essentially circumstantial evidence…
Authorities Cited
- Honorable Robert A. Butterworth v. Fluellen, 389 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 1980)
- Bismark Diaz & Bis D. Corp. v. Osmel R. Rodriguez, 384 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Kiddy v. State, 378 So. 2d 1332 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)