ROBERT JOHN DOYLE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1990-07-24
No. 89-2198
Before BARKDULL, NESBITT and FERGUSON, JJ.
565 So. 2d 797 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1990) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Skinner v. Skinner, 561 So. 2d 260 (Fla.1990); Smith v. State, 500 So. 2d 125 (Fla.1986); See Jones v. State, 446 So. 2d 1059 (Fla.1984); See Palmes v. State, 425 So. 2d 4 (Fla.1983); McCrae v. State, 437 So. 2d 1388 (Fla.1983); See Bailey v. State, 475 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); White v. State, 456 So. 2d 1302 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668,104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1987).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Herrera v. State, 581 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
    …y not exercise its discretion to determine whether the state’s discovery violation has harmed or prejudiced the defendant without first conducting an inquiry into all the surrounding circumstances. State v. Hall, 509 So. 2d at 1096; Lester v. State, 565 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). The majority finds no prejudice to the defendant; however, it is not within the province of the appellate court to “determine whether the error is harmless without giving the defendant the opportunity to show prejudice or harm.”…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw