FIDEL GUZMAN, 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.
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motions to dismiss, for a new trial, or for a judgment of acquittal.
The defendant was convicted of trafficking in cocaine. He appealed, arguing the state failed to disclose a confidential informant and that the trial c…
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 Confidential Informant Disclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant Fidel Guzman appeals his conviction and sentence for trafficking in cocaine, and urges two points for reversal. We find no merit in either point and affirm.
First, the defendant claims error in the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss and his motion for a new trial based on the state’s failure to disclose, upon prior order of the trial court, the whereabouts of a confidential informant who, it is urged, was needed for defense use in the instant case. We cannot agree. There is no showing that the state, either through calculated official ignorance or deliberate, intentional activity, was at fault for the informer’s disappearance in this case or for its failure to know the informer’s whereabouts, as was true in State v. Jones, 247 So. 2d 342 (Fla.3d DCA 1971), and Aldazabal v. State, 471 So. 2d 639 (Fla.3d DCA 1985). This being so, the trial court committed no error in denying the motion to dismiss and the motion for new trial. See State v. Saldarriaga, 486 So. 2d 683 (Fla.3d DCA 1986).
Second, the defendant claims error in the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal at trial. We cannot agree as, plainly, a jury question was presented below on the entrapment defense raised herein. See State v. Brider, 386 So. 2d 818, 820-21 (Fla.2d DCA), pet. for review denied, 392 So. 2d 1372 (Fla.1980); Richert v. State, 338 So. 2d 40, 44-45 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), cert. denied, 346 So. 2d 1250 (Fla.1977); Frady v. State, 235 So. 2d 56, 57 (Fla.2d DCA 1970).
The final judgment of conviction and sentence under review are, in all respects,
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Zamora, 534 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…official ignorance or deliberate intentional activity, the informant has disappeared and his whereabouts are unknown. Aldazabal v. State, 471 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); State v. Jones, 247 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); compare Guzman v. State, 498 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); State v. Saldarriaga, 486 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). There is further authority that a trial court is precluded from dismissing an information or indictment without first ordering an in camera review of the informant’s testim…
-
Crocker Invs., Inc. v. Statesman Life Ins. Co., 515 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…h, 462 So. 2d at 612. A timely letter served by a defendant to a plaintiff constitutes a paper served within the meaning of Rule 1.500(b) and entitles the defendant to notice of default proceedings. Reicheinbach, 462 So. 2d at 612; Beylund v. Gomez, 498 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); J.A.R., Inc. v. Universal Am. Realty Corp., 485 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). This court in earlier opinions has held that failure to provide adequate notice of an application for default, when required by the rules of civil pr…
-
State v. Rojas, 508 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…her refusal to testify against the defendants. “There is no showing that the state, either through calculated official ignorance or deliberate, intentional activity, was at fault for its failure to know the informant’s whereabouts.” Guzman v. State, 498 So. 2d 639, 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Absent such a showing of fault or bad faith, the sanction of dismissal is unwarranted. Id.; State v. Mena, 505 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Moreover, the state generally does not have an obligation to produce witnesses for…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Brider, 386 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- State v. Jones, 247 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Aldazabal v. State, 471 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- State v. Maritsa Saldarriaga, 486 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Richert v. State, 338 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Frady v. State, 235 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)