ANTHONY MOORE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Possession Of Cocaine With Intent To Sell cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm appellant’s convictions of possession of over 20 grams of cannabis, possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. At trial, a detective testified that he had test fired a gun seized from a car occupied by appellant. Defense counsel objected to the admission of the spent round into evidence, primarily on relevancy grounds, not as a discovery violation under Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971). Defense counsel did not object to the detective testifying that he had test fired the gun, which was relevant to prove that the gun was capable of firing a projectile under section 790.001(6), Florida Statutes (1999). The bullet was not admitted into evidence. The state did not refer to the bullet during the remainder of the case. Under these circumstances, we find no prejudicial error in the trial court’s failure to determine whether a discovery violation existed or to conduct a Richardson hearing. Appellant knew from discovery that the handgun had been recovered and that it was loaded.
AFFIRMED.
STONE, POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Branch v. State, 837 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…olations is not in the record. The state withdrew these violations at the first hearing, and the court erred in allowing the state to reinstate them at the second hearing. Therefore, the revocation on these grounds is in error. See Meadows v. State, 747 So. 2d 1043, 1044 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). However, these remaining violations were insubstantial and we conclude the court would have revoked appellant’s probation based solely upon her use of marijuana. We affirm the court’s order. SHAHOOD and TAYLOR, JJ., conc…
-
Wilcox v. State, 770 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…r, even so, would have imposed the same sentence, we reverse the order of revocation and remand this cause to the trial court for such lawful disposition on the violations charged in Counts I, II and IV as it deems appropriate. See Meadows v. State, 747 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Antoine v. State, 684 So. 2d 266, 267 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Brown v. State, 659 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). REVERSED and REMANDED. STONE and KLEIN, JJ., concur. . Rogers’ testimony to this effect was sufficient to support…
-
Foggy v. State, 837 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…prior to moving) and condition 18 (unauthorized contact with a child under the age of eighteen). We reverse and remand for the trial court to consider whether probation revocation is still warranted in view of this decision. See Meadows v. State, 747 So. 2d 1043, 1045 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)(remanding case to trial court for reconsideration where one of two probation violations had been reversed, and it was not apparent that the trial court would have revoked probation based on the remaining violation)(citing A…
Authorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)