ARMANDO LAZARO CORDOVI
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
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 Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a lower court decision in a criminal case involving Armando Lazaro Cordovi. The opinion briefly addresses issues related to continuance motions and the admissibility of 911 call evidence.
The court affirmed the lower court's decision, applying a prejudice standard and individualized inquiry to evaluate the continuance motion, and confirming that 911 calls may be admitted as spontaneous statements or excited utterances under Florida law.
[1] A 911 call may be admitted into evidence as either a spontaneous statement under section 90.803(1) or an excited utterance under section 90.803(2), Florida Statutes, and…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“using the prejudice standard and engaging in a fact-specific individualized inquiry”
Establishes the standard for reviewing denial of continuance motions, even after mid-trial amendments to information
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe opinion text does not provide detailed facts about the case. The referenced authorities suggest the case involved issues related to mid-trial amen…
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 Spontaneous Statements cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed April 3, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D22-1393 Lower Tribunal No. F21-10388
________________
Armando Lazaro Cordovi,
Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Appellee.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Teresa Pooler, Judge. Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Nicholas A. Lynch, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Linda Katz, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Thach v. State, 342 So. 3d 620, 625 (Fla. 2022) (affirming denial of motion for continuance after mid-trial amendment to information “using the prejudice standard and engaging in a fact-specific individualized inquiry”); Lopez v. State, 888 So. 2d 693, 699 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004), aff’d, 974 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 2008) (“Many courts have concluded that a hearsay statement made in a 911 call is not testimonial, because the statement is not made in response to police questioning, and because the purpose of the call is to obtain assistance, not to make a record against someone.”); Thompson v. State, 247 So. 3d 706, 710 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (holding 911 calls can be admitted “as either a spontaneous statement pursuant to section 90.803(1) . . . or an excited utterance pursuant to section 90.803(2), [Florida Statutes (2022)]”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cordovi v. State, 342 So. 3d 620 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Thach v. State, 342 So. 3d 620, 625 (Fla. 2022) (affirming denial of motion for continuance after mid-trial amendment to information “using the prejudice standard and engaging in a fact-specific individualized inquiry”); Lopez v. State, 888 So. 2d 693, 699 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004), af…
-
Godwin v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)…the same substantive proof and carried the same potential sentence as a charge under section 322.34(2)(c), and Godwin was on notice that his conduct likely violated section 322.34(5) because he was arrested under that subsection. See Thach v. State, 342 So. 3d 620, 623–24 (Fla. 2022) (holding that the State can amend the information during trial unless the defendant makes an individualized showing of prejudice to his substantial rights). Because Godwin failed to show that his designation as a habitual traffic…
-
Duffy v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)…, Florida Statutes. There was no objection to the information, and any such objection would have been properly denied, or the State could have amended the information before or at trial to conform to the specific act of oral sex. See Thach v. State, 342 So. 3d 620, 624 (Fla. 2022). Appellant denied committing any sexual act with the child. Thus, the jury was not presented with conflicting evidence as to the nature of the alleged act; either Appellant had the child perform oral sex on him or he did not. The ju…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Moroni Lopez v. State, 888 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- State v. Moroni Lopez, 974 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 2008)
- Cordovi v. State, 342 So. 3d 620 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
- Thompson v. State, 247 So. 3d 706 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)