STATE OF FL
v.
ZONIA ALVELO
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 Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court reversed a trial court's dismissal of criminal charges against Zonia Alvelo based on alleged violation of Florida's speedy trial rule. The appellate court held that the State's failure to produce an unrecorded oral statement and a photograph constituted no discovery violation, and therefore could not support discharge of the defendant under Rule 3.191.
The court held that neither the failure to produce the unrecorded oral statement nor the failure to timely disclose the photograph constituted discovery violations under Florida law. Consequently, there was no discovery violation to support a continuance that would place the trial outside the speedy trial period, and the defendant's discharge and dismissal must be reversed.
[1] The Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure do not require the State to disclose unrecorded oral statements.
[2] The State is not obligated to disclose information held by private parties that is not within the State's actual or constructive possession.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“on its face, the discovery rule of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 3.220, does not include an obligation to turn over unrecorded oral statements”
Establishes that unrecorded oral statements are not subject to discovery requirements under Florida law, based on McFadden
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceZonia Alvelo was charged in a criminal case. A witness, Mathias Quiroga, allegedly made an oral statement that Ms. Alvelo drove her car into his car. …
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.
Before: TRAWICK, WALSH and REBULL, JJ.
REBULL, J.
[*1] APPELLATE DIVISION
CASE NO. 2018-392-AC-01 LOWER COURT CASE NO.
A371DGP We reverse the order and judgment of dismissal (both signed 12/17/18) granting the defendant's motion for final discharge based on an alleged violation of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191, regarding Speedy Trial.
The State's failure to turn over the unrecorded oral statement allegedly made by Mathias Quiroga (that Ms. Alvelo drove her car into his car), is not a discovery violation. See State v. McFadden, 50 So. 3d 1131 (Fla. 2010). In McFadden, the Florida Supreme Court holds that "on its face," the discovery rule of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 3.220, does not include an obligation to turn over unrecorded oral statements. See id. at 1133.
Nor was it a discovery violation for the State to fail to turn over sooner to the defense a photograph given to the prosecutor by Mr. Quiroga (a private party) the day before trial was set to start. See generally 15 Fla. Jur 2d Criminal Law- Procedure § 1542 (2019).
The State is charged with constructive knowledge of evidence and information held by other departments of the executive branch of Florida's government, including the police and law enforcement officers, and the Department of Children and Families. An assistant state attorney is charged with knowledge of information held by other lawyers and agents working in the state attorney's office.
The agency's "knowledge" is imputed to the state attorney for purposes of the State's duty to disclose. The State is charged with constructive knowledge of information in the hands of law enforcement officers, thus, the knowledge of law enforcement officers is imputed to the prosecutor, for purposes of the rule requiring the disclosure of persons known to the prosecutor to have information relevant to the offense charged. Accordingly, the mere fact that the prosecution has no actual knowledge of the existence of a tape does [*2] not relieve the State of its obligation to properly respond to the defendant's discovery request.
However, none of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure dealing with discovery require the State to disclose information that is not within the State's actual or constructive possession. Thus, the State is not required to produce investigative files where the files are not in the State's possession or control. It is also unlikely that the State would be deemed to have constructive possession of information held by a private party regardless of whether the State had actual knowledge of its existence.
15 Fla. Jur 2d Criminal Law-Procedure § 1542 (2019) (emphasis added) (footnotes omitted); see also Barron v. State, 990 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (holding that federal DEA files were not in the possession, custody, or control of the State).
Because there were no discovery violations, there was no basis for a statecharged continuance setting the trial date outside of the speedy trial time period. See generally State v. Naveira, 873 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 2004) (holding that a defense continuance request should not have been charged to the State where the information and discovery are filed and turned over on the last day of the speedy trial period). As a result, the lower court should not have discharged the defendant and dismissed the case for violation of Rule 3.191.
We reverse the judgment of dismissal and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
TRAWICK AND WALSH, JJ., concur [*3] Copies furnished to all parties
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Naveira, 873 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 2004)
- Barron v. State, 990 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
- State v. McFADDEN, 50 So. 3d 1131 (Fla. 2010)