MANUEL CREME, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed drug convictions but reversed sentences to correct the written sentencing order to match the trial court's oral pronouncement.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to permit impeachment of a minimally involved officer with post-arrest matters or in admitting cocaine without a complete chain of custody where no tampering was suggested.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in refusing to permit a defense witness to impeach an officer with matters arising subsequent to the defendant's arrest when t…
[2] Cocaine seized from a defendant may be admitted into evidence without establishing a complete chain of custody where nothing in the record supports a reasonable probabili…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceManuel Creme was convicted of possession of cocaine, sale/manufacture/delivery of cocaine, and resisting an officer without violence. The defense soug…
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 Tampering With Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Manuel Creme appeals his convictions and sentences for possession of cocaine, sale, manufacture, or delivery of cocaine, and resisting an officer without violence. We affirm his convictions upon a holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in (1) refusing to permit the defense to call as a defense witness an officer only slightly involved in defendant’s arrest in order to impeach that officer with matters that arose subsequent to the defendant’s arrest, see Apfel v. State, 429 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Faver v. State, 393 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 4th 1981); and (2) admitting into evidence the cocaine seized from defendant without requiring the state to establish a complete chain of custody for the substance where there was nothing of record which would support a reasonable probability of tampering with the evidence. See Robinson v. State, 561 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Stunson v. State, 228 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969).
We do, however, reverse Creme’s sentences and remand the case to the trial court for correction of the sentencing order so that it comports with the court’s oral pronouncement of sentence, i.e., that he was sentenced to fifteen years as a habitual offender on the sale, manufacture conviction (count 2 of the information), five years concurrent on the possession conviction (count 1 of the information), and that entry of sentence was suspended as to count 3.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. State, 788 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…So. 2d 1077 (Fla.1998); State v. Taplis, 684 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), rev. dismissed, 703 So. 2d 453 (Fla.1997).3 Deputy Casey’s explanation dispelled any clam of tampering with the evidence and it was properly admitted. See Creme v. State, 752 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). AFFIRMED. PETERSON and PLEUS, JJ., concur. . § 316.2956, Fla.Stat. . J.L. v. State, 727 So. 2d 204 (Fla.1998), affirmed, 529 U.S. 266, 120 S.Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (2000); McMaster v. State, 780 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 5th DCA 2…
-
S.D.F. v. State, 911 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…nd probation orders to conform with its oral pronouncements. See S.S.M. v. State, 875 So. 2d 763, 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)(holding that “a written probation order must conform with the trial court’s oral pronouncements at sentencing”); Creme v. State, 752 So. 2d 1238, 1239 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)(reversing and remanding to trial court to correct sentencing order so that it comports with the trial court’s oral pronouncements); Bell v. State, 596 So. 2d 479, 480 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Johnson v. State, 486 So. 2d 657, 65…
-
Breon Lavin Braboy v. State, 868 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…PER CURIAM. In the absence of a showing in the record by the defense that there was a probability that the cocaine seized by the police was tampered with, we find no merit to the appellant’s chain of custody challenge. See Creme v. State, 752 So. 2d 1238, 1239 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Garcia v. State, 721 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Dodd v. State, 537 So. 2d 626, 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Accordingly, we affirm the appellant’s conviction and sentence for possession of cocaine with the intent to sell or…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Stunson v. State, 228 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Friday v. Millard Roberts, 393 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Robinson v. State, 561 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Apfel v. State, 429 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)