EUGENE WILLIAMS, 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.
This case involves an appeal from a conviction for breaking and entering an automobile and petit larceny. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments regarding the delay in trial and the denial of access to a police report.
No, the delay did not violate the defendant's rights because he did not affirmatively invoke the relevant statute. No, the court did not err in denying the request for the police report, as it was used to refresh the officer's memory outside of the courtroom, not during testimony.
“The lapse of time before trial was not a violation of the constitutional rights of the appellant, since he did not affirmatively invoke the provisions of § 915.01 Fla.Stat., F.S.A.”
establishes the court's reasoning for denying the speedy trial claim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was convicted of breaking and entering an automobile and petit larceny. He appealed, arguing that the delay in his trial violated his co…
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 Petit Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
On this appeal by the defendant below from conviction .of the offenses of breaking and entering an automobile and petit larceny, we have considered the contentions of the appellant in the light of the record and briefs and find them to be without merit. The lapse of time before trial was not a violation of the constitutional rights of the appellant, since he did not affirmatively invoke the provisions of § 915.01 Fla.Stat., F.S.A. The court was not in error in denying the request of the defendant at trial for production of the police report, which it appeared the officer, outside the courtroom, had examined to refresh his memory prior to taking the stand to testify. That situation is to be distinguished from the right to have produced for examination and use a statement or writing used by a witness during the course of his testimony to refresh his recollection.
Affirmed.