FERNANDO SEGARRA, 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.
Defendant's conviction for conspiracy to possess cocaine was affirmed where the trial court properly denied motions to dismiss, suppress, and interview the confidential informant in camera.
The trial court did not commit reversible error in denying defendant's motions to dismiss, suppress evidence, or conduct an in camera interview of the confidential informant.
[1] A confidential informant who has not been engaged by the state is not a state agent for purposes of suppressing statements made to that informant.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFernando Segarra was convicted by jury verdict of conspiracy to possess cocaine after making incriminating statements to a confidential informant who …
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 Conspiracy To Possess Cocaine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendant Fernando Segarra from a judgment of conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess cocaine which was entered below upon an adverse jury verdict. Defendant raises three points on appeal which, we conclude, fail to present reversible error.
First, the trial court did not, as urged, commit reversible error in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss. No showing of entrapment as a matter of law was made below under Cruz v. State, 465 So. 2d 516 (Fla.), cert. denied, 473 U.S. 905, 105 S.Ct. 3527, 87 L.Ed.2d 652 (1985); nor was any showing made below of a due process violation under State v. Glosson, 462 So. 2d 1082 (Fla.1985), or Hunter v. State, 531 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).
Second, the trial court did not, as urged, commit reversible error in denying defendant’s motion to suppress; clearly, the confidential informant had not been engaged by the state, and therefore was not an agent of the state, at the time the defendant made certain incriminating statements to said informant. See DuBoise v. State, 520 So. 2d 260 (Fla.1988).
Third, the trial court did not, as urged, commit reversible error in refusing to interview in camera the confidential informant. No showing was made below to require such an in camera interview under State v. Acosta, 439 So. 2d 1024, 1026 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). The final judgment of conviction and sentence under review is therefore, in all respects,
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Martinez v. Martinez, 573 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…the final judgment of dissolution. For these reasons, we hold that the lower court erred as a matter of law in requiring Mr. Martinez to continue the children’s education at the specified school. § 61.13(2)(b)2.a, Fla.Stat. (1989); Wilson v. Wilson, 559 So. 2d 698, 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (private educational expenses may be awarded as part of child support payments by noncustodial parent where that parent has the ability to pay for private school and such expenses are in accordance with the family’s customar…
-
Stefanowitz v. Stefanowitz, 586 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…xpenses should be awarded as part of child support payments is whether: (1) the parties have the ability to pay; (2) such expenses are in accordance with the customary standard of living; and (3) it is in the child’s best interest. Wilson v. Wilson, 559 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Substantial evidence supports a finding that private education is required under the special circumstances of this case. In weighing the parties’ financial positions against their customary practice of private education and the…
-
Crowley v. Crowley, 672 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…e: (1) the parties have the ability to pay; (2) such expenses are in accordance with the customary standard of living; and (3) it is in the child’s best interest. Stefanowitz v. Stefanowitz, 586 So. 2d 460, 462 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Wilson v. Wilson, 559 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). In the instant case, uneontroverted evidence established that the boys had attended the same private school throughout their education. The only testimony was that it would be in the boys’ best interest to continue in private sc…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cruz v. State, 465 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 1985)
- State v. Boyce E. Glosson, 462 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 1985)
- DuBOISE v. State, 520 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1988)
- Wilson v. Florida, 473 U.S. 905 (U.S. 1985)
- Christoffersen et ux. v. United States, 473 U.S. 905 (U.S. 1985)
- State v. Acosta, 439 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Watkins v. State, 531 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Hunter v. State, 531 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)