SANTOS TORRES, APPELLANT,
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.
Santos Torres appealed his convictions for first-degree murder, armed robbery, and aggravated assault, challenging a discovery violation, the unavailability of a suppression hearing transcript, and sentencing enhancements. The court affirmed the convictions but corrected the sentences on the aggravated assault counts.
The discovery violation was harmless error because the trial court's remedial measures were adequate; the suppression hearing transcript was not required because the record was sufficient for appellate review; and the sentences on the aggravated assault counts were improperly enhanced and must be reduced from fifteen to five years.
[1] A trial court's denial of a motion for mistrial due to a discovery violation is not error when the court conducts an adequate hearing, finds the violation inadvertent, tr…
[2] A new trial is not required when a transcript of a suppression hearing is unavailable if the circumstances are otherwise fully addressed at trial and the record is suffic…
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“the trial court's conclusions are supported by the record and the remedy offered was an adequate response to the discovery violation, we find no error”
Establishes the court's standard for reviewing discovery violations and the adequacy of the trial court's remedial measures
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTorres was convicted of first-degree murder, two counts of armed robbery, and two counts of aggravated assault. The state failed to provide copies of …
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 Appeal Of Convictions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Torres appeals his convictions and sentences on charges of first degree murder, armed robbery (two counts) and aggravated assault (two counts). With a correction of the sentences imposed, we affirm.
Torres argues, first, that the trial court erred by refusing his motion for mistrial made on the ground that the state committed a discovery violation by failing to provide copies of two witnesses’ statements. The trial court conducted an ade quate Richardson hearing1 and apparently concluded that the violation was inadvertent, trivial and nonprejudicial. Additionally, the court granted a recess to allow defense counsel time to read the statements and offered to allow cross-examination of the officer who took the statements and the witnesses who gave them. Because the trial court’s conclusions are supported by the record and the remedy offered was an adequate response to the discovery violation, we find no error. See Miller v. State, 435 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Wright v. State, 428 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), approved on separate certified question, 446 So. 2d 86 (Fla.1984); State v. Bowers, 422 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).
Torres’s second contention is that he is entitled to a new trial because the transcript of the hearing on a motion to suppress his statement is unavailable. The circumstances surrounding that statement, however, were fully addressed at trial by the only witness who testified at the suppression hearing. Furthermore, the four exhibits presented at the hearing are a part of the record. Consequently, the record is sufficient for appellate review and a new trial is not required. See Glinton v. Wille, 457 So. 2d 563, 566 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Lipman v. State, 428 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
Finally, Torres argues, and the state concedes, that the trial court erred in enhancing the sentences, pursuant to section 775.087(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1983), on the aggravated assault convictions. See Knight v. State, 374 So. 2d 1065, 1067 n.2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 386 So. 2d 642 (Fla.1980); Williams v. State, 358 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Butler v. State, 343 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Accordingly, the sentences on those counts are modified by being reduced from fifteen to five years.
Affirmed as modified.
. Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Raffone v. State, 483 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…attention was more than sufficient to apprise the court of the nature of their complaint. Also, other courts have proceeded to address Richardson-hearing issues which were apparently preserved by a motion for a mistrial. See, e.g., Torres v. State, 474 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Matheson v. State, 468 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). The state’s second argument, that no discovery violation occurred, is unpersuasive. It contends that a defendant cannot claim prejudice as a result of his own failure to ob…
-
Cohen v. State, 581 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…y is on procedural prejudice. Thompson v. State, 565 So. 2d 1311 (Fla.1990), Ross v. State, 474 So. 2d 1170 (Fla.1985); Zeigler v. State, 402 So. 2d 365 (Fla.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1035, 102 S.Ct. 1739, 72 L.Ed.2d 153 (1982); Torres v. State, 474 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Further, the trial court took sufficient curative measures to remedy any claims of prejudice by allowing appellant to conduct additional depositions, and granting continuances to secure additional defense experts. Thompson v. St…
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- Miller v. State, 435 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- City OF Miami Beach v. Sargeant, 358 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Lewis v. State, 428 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Gans v. Tarlton, 374 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Stanford Legray Knight v. State, 374 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Wright v. State, 428 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Butler v. State, 343 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Glinton v. Wille, 457 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- State v. Bowers, 422 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)