KEITH LASIAK, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Procedural Prejudice cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We find no abuse of discretion in denial of the defendant’s motions for mistrial and new trial made in response to the State’s discovery violation. See Perez v. State, 856 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). The State’s discovery violation did not procedurally prejudice the defendant because there exists no “reasonable possibility that the defendant’s trial preparation or strategy would have been materially different had the violation not occurred.” State v. Schopp, 653 So. 2d 1016, 1020 (Fla.1995). “Trial preparation or strategy should be considered materially different if it reasonably could have benefited .the defendant.” Id. at 1020. Procedural prejudice is not simply that the defendant may have tried another trial strategy but rather whether such different strategy reasonably could have in any way benefited him. See e.g. Lynch v. State, 925 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Powell v. State, 912 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Rainey v. State, 596 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). The record in this case reflects beyond a reasonable doubt the absence of any such strategy. See Kiser v. State, 921 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).
AFFIRMED.'
PALMER, C.J., PLEUS and TORPY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gage v. State, 147 So. 3d 1020 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…53, 758 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (examining changes defendant claimed he would have made in trial preparation and finding beyond reasonable doubt no procedural prejudice because undisclosed information did not affect his chosen defense); Lasiak v. State, 966 So. 2d 983, 984 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (holding no procedural prejudice because record reflected absence of any materially different trial strategy). We carefully reviewed the record. The State has not demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense was…
-
Jules v. State, 178 So. 3d 475 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…CIKLIN, C.J., and FORST, J., concur. . Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971). . In any event, any error on the Richardson hearing was harmless based on this record. Scipio v. State, 928 So. 2d 1138, 1149-50 (Fla. 2006); Lasiak v. State, 966 So. 2d 983, 984 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007),…
-
Wingard v. Sec'y Dep't of Corr. (Duval County) (M.D. Fla. 2024)…F at 512–13.) Defendant has failed to show prejudice because nothing in the record indicates that counsel's trial preparation or strategy would have been different had counsel obtained the records before trial. See Lasiak v. State, 966 So. 2d 983, 984 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). The records merely detailed subscriber information for a cellular phone listed in Defendant's name. (Ex. F at 518–19.) Counsel knew the State would be using Defendant's phone records against him. (Ex. Fat 51…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Schopp, 653 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1995)
- Rainey v. State, 596 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Powell v. State, 912 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Perez v. State, 856 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Pernele Kiser v. State, 921 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Kishaune Lynch v. State, 925 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)