EDDIE LEE JONES, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Continuance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reject appellant’s contention that the trial court’s failure to conduct a Richardson
*
hearing or to grant a continuance entitles him to a new trial. As to the first point, a review of the record reveals that the state supplied Jones with all the information in its possession, thereby removing the need for a Richardson hearing. See Marshall v. State, 413 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), quashed in part on other grounds, 445 So. 2d 355 (Fla.1984). As to the second point, the denial of a motion for a continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned in the absence of an abuse of discretion. Echols v. State, 10 F.L.W. 526 (Fla. Sept. 19, 1985); Holman v. State, 347 So. 2d 832, 836 (Fla.3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 354 So. 2d 981 (Fla.1978). Holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for continuance, we affirm.
Affirmed.
*
Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Adams v. State, 559 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…e statements solicited were not hearsay because they were offered only to show what prompted Officer Spates to arrest appellant is inappropriate. As noted by appellant, there is no such “probable cause exception to the hearsay rule.” Wells v. State, 477 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Instead, Officer Spates’ testimony was inadmissible as testimony of prior consistent statements utilized for the obvious purpose of proving [*438] the truth of the matter asserted by corroborating the respective witness’ testimon…
-
Robinson v. State, 586 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…istrial based on an alleged discovery violation by the state. We affirm. Since the state had given everything it had to the defense, and the defense agreed that the prosecutor had done so, a “Richardson” hearing was not required. See Jones v. State, 477 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Robinson’s second point is whether the trial court improperly imposed restitution. Because Robinson did not object to the trial court’s failure to consider his ability to pay restitution, he has waived that point. Williams v. S…
-
Augustine Antonio Ledo v. State, 587 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…discovered was not at issue at the time of trial. That issue had already been resolved at a previous motion to suppress hearing. See Heuring v. State, 513 So. 2d 122 (Fla.1987); Walker v. State, 567 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Cf. Wells v. State, 477 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (no “probable cause exception” to the hearsay rule). Based on the foregoing, the defendant’s conviction is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- Holman v. State, 347 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Carnavil v. The Pines OF Delray Ass'n, Inc., 413 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Marshall v. State, 413 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)