MICHAEL KING, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Richardson Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges the judgment and sentence that adjudicated him guilty of violating his probation. We reverse because the trial court failed to rule upon or conduct any inquiry into a purported discovery violation before proceeding to trial, despite a timely and proper defense objection.
On January 23, 2004, Appellant’s probation officer filed an affidavit alleging that Appellant had violated his probation. The Public Defender was appointed to represent Appellant on February 3, 2004, and on February 10, 2004, the matter was tried. Immediately prior to trial, the defense notified the court that it had not received any discovery from the State. Without addressing the defense objection, the lower court simply told the prosecutor to “call your first witness.” On appeal, Appellant contends that the lower court erred by not conducting a Richardson hearing or its equivalent. In response, the State urges that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We disagree. The State has failed in its burden to show harmless error and a new trial is required.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
SHARP, W., PLEUS and TORPY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
W.N. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 919 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…eunification plan after having an extended period of time to do so. In short, the evidence establishes that measures short of termination will not permit the parent-child bond to be safely re-established. D.A.D. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 903 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), review denied, No. SC05-1352, 918 So. 2d 291 (Fla. Nov 29, 2005), (holding that father’s egregious conduct, chronic abuse of the children, and drug and alcohol abuse that persisted despite treatment demonstrated that there was no…
-
Guardian Ad Litem Program v. Dept. of Child. & Families, 255 So. 3d 882 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
-
In the interest of A.W., JR. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 962 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…finition of egregious, that is not the end of the inquiry under section 39.806(l)(f). There must be a nexus between the egregious conduct and some neglect, abuse, or harm to the child. See D.A.D. v. Dep’t of Children Family Servs. (In re D.A.D. II), 903 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). The trial court made no findings regarding a nexus between the Father’s conduct and an adverse impact on A.W., Jr. Indeed, the only testimony regarding the impact of the shooting on the child was that he had exhibited no effects…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence