LEONARDO MATERNO, 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.
Leonardo Materno appeals his manslaughter conviction claiming discovery violations by the State. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, finding that the defendant's claims of nondisclosed evidence were refuted by the trial record.
No discovery violation occurred. The State was not required to disclose information not within its actual or constructive possession; since Ayala had never previously told police about the incriminating statement, the State did not possess it. Additionally, defendant's statement to the detective was disclosed in the written police report provided to the defense.
[1] A discovery violation does not occur when the State fails to disclose information not within its actual or constructive possession.
[2] A defendant's claim of a discovery violation regarding an oral statement is refuted if the witness testifies that the statement was made for the first time in court and h…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“[N]one of the rules of criminal procedure relating to discovery require the State to disclose information which is not within the State's actual or constructive possession.”
Establishes the legal standard that the State has no obligation to disclose information it does not actually or constructively possess.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWitness Alfredo Ayala testified at trial to an incriminating statement allegedly made by defendant Materno that was not contained in Ayala's sworn pol…
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 Richardson Inquiry cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Leonardo Materno appeals his conviction for manslaughter, contending that there must be a new trial on account of discovery violations by the State. As the defendant’s claims are refuted by the record, we affirm the conviction.
One of the witnesses against defendant-appellant Materno was Alfredo Ayala, whose sworn statement to the police had been turned over to the defense. While on the stand, Ayala, testified to an incriminating statement that the defendant had made, which was not contained in Ayala’s sworn statement.1 Defendant argues that the failure to disclose to the defendant the substance of any oral statement made by him constitutes a discovery violation, see Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.220(b)(1)(C), and that the Richardson
inquiry was inadequate.
Defendant’s argument on this point is refuted by the record. When questioned further,'Ayala testified that he had never previously told the police about the incriminating statement the defendant now complains about, and acknowledged that he was saying it “today for the first time in this courtroom.” There was no discovery violation. “[N]one of the rules of criminal procedure relating to discovery require the State to disclose information which is not within the State’s actual or constructive possession.” Sinclair v. State, 657 So. 2d 1138, 1141 (Fla.1995).
Defendant’s second claim of discovery violation is likewise without merit. While defendant claims there was a nondisclosure of one of defendant’s statements to the detective who investigated the case, the record refutes this claim. When cross-examined, the detective pointed out that the allegedly nondisclosed fact was included in his written report, which was given to the defense.3
Affirmed.
. Ayala testified, in part, that the defendant and co-defendant Jose Fernandez told him "[t]hey had a gun and they were looking for them [the victim and Jorge Fernandez] to kill them.”
. Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971).
. On this appeal, the defendant also argues that the State failed to disclose the fact that the defendant said he threw a pipe at the victim. Defendant made no such argument in the trial court. The pipe throwing incident is set forth in the defendant's own sworn statement.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Landry v. State, 931 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…of the state. In Sears v. State, 656 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), the court reversed the trial court’s failure to conduct a Richardson hearing, where alleged statements made by the defendant to the victim were not disclosed. In Materno v. State, 766 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), the court considered whether there had been an adequate Richardson hearing when a witness against the defendant testified to a statement not contained in the witness’ sworn statement. A Richardson hearing is required when there…
-
S.H. v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Materno v. State, 766 So. 2d 358, 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (“While defendant claims there was a nondisclosure of one of defendant’s statements to the detective who investigated the case, the record refutes this claim . . . [T]he allegedly nondisclosed fact was included in his written…
Authorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- Sinclair v. State, 657 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 1995)