CARLOS SANCHEZ, 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.
Carlos Sanchez appeals his conviction for attempted second-degree murder, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss based on alleged destruction of a urine toxicology report. The appellate court affirmed, finding no evidence the report ever existed or was in the State's possession.
The trial court properly denied Sanchez's motion because no evidence exists that the urine toxicology report ever existed, and even if it did, it was never in the actual or constructive possession of the State.
[1] A trial court properly denies a motion to dismiss or exclude evidence when the record supports the conclusion that no such evidence ever existed.
[2] A trial court properly denies a motion to dismiss or exclude evidence when the evidence in question was never in the actual or constructive possession of the State.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“the record below supports the trial court's conclusion that no such report ever existed. Further, even if such a report did exist, the trial court properly determined that the report was never in the actual or constructive possession of the State.”
Establishes the court's primary basis for upholding denial of the motion to dismiss—the report never existed or was never in the State's possession
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe victim was transported to a hospital after the incident and a physician ordered several tests including a blood test and urine screen. A blood tes…
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 Destruction Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
In these consolidated appeals, Carlos Sanchez appeals his judgment and sentence,1 following a jury trial, on the charge of attempted second-degree murder. Sanchez raises four issues on appeal, two of which warrant no further discussion. As to Sanchez’s claims that the trial court erred in denying Sanchez’s pretrial motion to dismiss or exclude evidence based upon the State’s alleged destruction of (or failure to produce) a urine toxicology report, we find that the record below supports the trial court’s conclusion that no such report ever existed.2 Further, even if such a report did exist, the trial court properly determined that the report was never in the actual or constructive possession of the State.3 Given the absence of any evidence that the report in question ever existed or (if it did exist) was ever in the State’s possession, or that the State was ever aware of the results of any such test, the *70trial court properly denied Sanchez’s motion to dismiss or to exclude evidence,
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Oliver v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2024)
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Gorham v. State, 597 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 1992)
- Antone v. State, 355 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 1978)