ROBERTO PEREZ, 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 held that the trial court did not commit reversible error in denying the defendant's motion for production of an informer or in admitting evidence from a search and seizure.
The defendant was convicted on two counts related to the sale and possession of marijuana under the Florida Uniform Narcotic Drug Act. He appealed the…
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 Unlawful Possession Of Marijuana cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal brings for review the judgment and sentence entered as a result of the defendant’s conviction on two counts of the Florida Uniform Narcotic Drug Act, Ch. 398, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., to wit: (1) Unlawful sale of a narcotic drug [marijuana] and (2) Unlawful possession of marijuana.
In this appeal the defendant has raised two points, which he alleged constituted reversible error. The first alleged that the trial court’s denial of his motion for production of an informer as a material witness deprived the defendant of his right to be confronted with a witness against him in a criminal prosecution, as guaranteed by the United States Constitution, Amendment VI, and the Florida Constitution, Declaration of Rights, § 11, F.S.A. The second alleged error by the trial court in admitting into evidence certain evidence and testimony obtained during a search and seizure.
We have carefully considered the briefs submitted by the respective parties, together with the record before us, and have found no reversible error. Blackwell v. State, 79 Fla. 709, 86 So. 224, 15 A.L.R. 465; Robertson v. State, 94 Fla. 770, 776, 114 So. 534; Fuller v. State, 159 Fla. 200, 31 So.2d 259. Therefore, the judgment and sentence is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Casso v. State, 182 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…62 So. 653; Bell v. State, 65 Fla. 505, 62 So. 654; Edington v. State, 81 Fla. 634, 88 So. 468. And this rule has been applied in cases involving admission of evidence allegedly obtained by an illegal arrest and search. Perez v. State, Fla.App.1963, 151 So. 2d 686; Dorsey v. United States, C.A., Fla.1949, 174 F. 2d 899, cert. den. 338 U.S. 950, 70 S.Ct. 479, 94 L.Ed. 586, also 340 U. S. 878, 71 S.Ct. 116, 95 L.Ed. 639. And so, even in a murder prosecution, involving evidence found in a search of a defendant’s…
Authorities Cited
- Robertson v. State, 94 Fla. 770 (Fla. 1927)
- Will Blackwell and Robert Blackwell v. The State of Floirda, 79 Fla. 709 (Fla. 1920)
- Fletcher Fuller and Abner Fuller v. State, 159 Fla. 200 (Fla. 1947)