DYLAN BUSL, 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 tape recording of the defendant's first appearance was properly authenticated and admissible as evidence.
During a search of the defendant's premises, cannabis and Rohypnol were found. A tape recording of the defendant's first appearance, where he admitted…
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 Authentication Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, Judge.
Dylan Busl, at first appearance and after being cautioned, admitted ownersMp of the cannabis and the Rohypnol which were found at Ms premises during the execution of a search warrant. The first appearance tape was admitted into evidence over defense objection during the State’s case. Busl appeals; we affirm.
It is the defense’s position that the tape was not sufficiently authenticated. Ms. Inman, a deputy clerk, testified that the official duties of the Clerk of Court include tape recording all first appearances. She testified how the tapes are made and further testified that after the proceedmgs are recorded, the tapes are sealed and stored m the Clerk’s office under an appropriate number. It is an official record (a business record) kept by the Clerk of Court. It was produced at trial pursuant to a State subpoena. Ms. Inman testified that the tape had not been changed or altered in any way. We find the tape was properly authenticated.
The defense also contends that there was no showmg that the person speakmg on the tape and identifying himself as Mr. Busl was actually Dylan Busl. When the court made its ruling on the admissibility of the tape, it had before it the entire court file. TMs would include the Bookmg Officer’s Certificate, signed by Mr. Busl, setting Ms first appearance on the date the tape was recorded. The record also included the order of the county court judge admittmg Mr. Busl to bond signed on the date indicated for Ms first appearance. These records are also before us. Further, Mr. Busl testified at trial that m fact the voice heard on the tape is Ms and confirmed the statements thereon. See Cooper v. State, 261 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972).
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bines v. State, 837 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…ht to be present at resentencing from a rule 3.800(a) motion. Roy v. State, 711 So. 2d 1348 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). A defendant also has the right to be represented by counsel at resentencing under a meritorious rale 3.800(a) motion. McDonald v. State, 679 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Here, Appellant alleges that he was denied these rights, and the record does not refute his allegations. In fact, the record supports his allegations, in that the trial court’s order on the rale 3.800(a) motion states that “[t]h…
-
Isidro G. Gonzalez v. State, 838 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…a.1983). Sentencing is a critical stage of the criminal proceedings; thus, a sentencing hearing is mandatory. See id. at 221. As such, an indigent defendant is entitled to appointment of counsel at re-sentencing. See id.; see also McDonald v. State, 679 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). The lack of representation is not a sentencing error, but rather a due process error. Thus, Appellant may properly raise this issue on appeal. Cf. Harvey v. State, 786 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (holding that unpreserved se…
-
Odell Bush v. State, 843 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…III for retaliating against a witness could be properly enhanced for use of a firearm when use of a firearm was not alleged in the information. We determine that appellant is correct as to issue I and remand for resentencing. See McDonald v. State, 679 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (holding that defendant is entitled to counsel at resentencing after prevailing on post-conviction motion). We decline to address issue II, as it was not raised in the trial court. BARFIELD and DAVIS, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Garcia v. State, 261 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)