PEDRO RODRIGUEZ, 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.
The court affirmed the conviction, finding the police investigation sufficient for probable cause and the admission of evidence within the trial court's discretion.
Pedro Rodriguez was convicted of manslaughter, felony causing bodily injury, burglary, and armed robbery. The conviction was based in part on an anony…
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 Manslaughter cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Pedro Rodriguez appeals his conviction for manslaughter, felony causing bodily injury, burglary, and armed robbery. We affirm.
First, we conclude that the police investigation was sufficient to corroborate the anonymous tip and gave rise to probable cause to arrest defendant-appellant Rodriguez. See R.A. v. State, 725 So. 2d 1240, 1241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). The defendant’s flight when police officers arrived at the defendant’s home was one element which could be considered along with the facts developed in the police investigation. See Blanding v. State, 446 So. 2d 1135, 1137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).
Second, given the defendant’s statement to the police, the admission of the gun and gloves recovered from his residence was within the trial court’s discretion. See Kearse v. State, 662 So. 2d 677, 684 (Fla.1995).
Third, the defendant’s objection on the basis of the Confrontation Clause was sustained and no further request for relief was made. Accordingly, no further relief on appeal is warranted.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Electo Echevarria v. State, 976 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…not to testify. The codefendant had been tried separately, and the State asked the trial court to take notice of the fact that the codefen-dant’s appeal to this Court remained pending until a date after the defendant’s trial. See Rodriguez v. State, 905 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (decided June 22, 2005). However, the State’s trial court response did not bring forth any facts demonstrating that the codefendant had asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege at trial. We have taken judicial notice of this court’s…
Authorities Cited
- Kearse v. State, 662 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 1995)
- Blanding v. State, 446 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- R.A. v. State, 725 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)