RICHARD EUGENE CALLAHAN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; ROBERT STEPHEN CALLAHAN, 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.
The court held that the contingent fee arrangement with a confidential informant did not violate appellants' due process rights, as the informant's testimony was not a prerequisite for payment and the case did not involve a reverse-sting operation.
Appellants were convicted of drug offenses and pleaded nolo contendere, reserving the right to appeal the denial of their motions to dismiss based on …
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 Reverse Sting Operation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants appeal their convictions of various drug offenses involving trafficking, conspiracy to traffic and other drug-related offenses. Appellants pleaded nolo contendere to the information charging the various offenses, but expressly reserved their right to appeal the trial court’s order that denied their motions to dismiss the information on the basis of alleged prosecutorial misconduct that they allege violated their due process rights. We affirm.
Appellants argue that the facts of their case are similar to the facts in State v. Glosson,462 So. 2d 1082 (Fla.1985), in that the contingent fee arrangement with the confidential informant creates such a prejudicial situation that appellants would be unable to receive a fair and unbiased trial to the extent that their due process rights are violated.
We disagree and find that the facts of this case are more similar to Ehmke v. State, 478 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), rev. denied, 488 So. 2d 67 (Fla.1986) and Yolman v. State, 473 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), pet. for rev. denied, 475 So. 2d 696 (Fla.1985) than they are to Glosson. It is not evident in this case that the testimony of the confidential informant was a prerequisite for the receipt of any payments which the informant might be entitled to receive. Furthermore, this case did not involve the state attorney in a “reverse-sting” type of narcotics operation.
We affirm.
CAMPBELL, C.J., and LEHAN and PARKER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Boyce E. Glosson, 462 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 1985)
- Howard v. State, 473 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Ehmke v. State, 478 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)