ARTHURO SAVINON, 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.
Arthuro Savinon was convicted by jury of unlawful sale of cocaine and sentenced to ten years in prison. He appealed on five grounds, all of which the court rejected, affirming his conviction.
The court affirmed the conviction, finding no error on any of the five points. The substitute chemist's testimony was properly admitted because the defendant was not prejudiced by the substitution and tardy report. The speedy trial motion was properly denied because the defendant's own actions contributed to the delay and defense counsel was not ready to proceed. The evidentiary rulings were proper, and the confidential informant issue did not warrant reversal.
[1] A conviction will be affirmed when the jury verdict is based on sufficient evidence and the proof of guilt is clear and convincing.
[2] A new trial will not be granted when the substitution of a witness and the tardy delivery of a report do not prejudice the appellant's defense.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 jury verdict was based on sufficient evidence and that the proof of appellant's guilt is clear and convincing”
The court's finding regarding the evidentiary sufficiency of the conviction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSavinon sold cocaine to a police officer. A chemist from the Dade County Crime Laboratory testified that the package sold by appellant contained cocai…
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 Confidential Informant Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was found guilty by a jury of the unlawful sale of a narcotic drug. He was sentenced to a term of ten years in the state prison. On this appeal, he presents five points for reversal.
Our review of the record indicates that the jury verdict was based on sufficient evidence and that the proof of appellant’s guilt is clear and convincing. The narcotic drug which appellant sold was cocaine.
Appellant’s first point urges that he should be granted a new trial because the trial court erred in permitting a witness to testify who was not included on the State’s list of witnesses. The witness referred to was the chemist who testified as to the fact that the package sold by the appellant contained cocaine. The witness list furnished to appellant prior to trial contained the name of the chemist who originally examined the evidence. When the court set an exact trial date, it became apparent that this witness would be unavailable. The trial judge, in order to expedite the progress of the case, ordered the Dade County Crime Laboratory to make a new chemical analysis of the evidence involved. The analysis was duly performed in accordance with the court order. However, the name of the substitute chemist was not furnished to the appellant, and a copy of the report was not furnished until the day of the trial. If it could reasonably be said that *59this omission could have interfered with appellant’s preparation of his defense, we would have given further consideration to this point. It affirmatively appears from the record, however, that appellant was in no way prejudiced by the substitution of the chemist and the State’s tardy delivery of the report. Therefore, error has not been shown. See Richardson v. State, Fla.1971, 246 So.2d 771, 774.
Appellant’s second point urges that the trial court erred in denying his motion for discharge pursuant to his demand for speedy trial. The record on this appeal shows that appellant not only continued the progress of discovery after the time of filing his demand, but it also shows that defense counsel was not ready to proceed on at least one occasion when the case was called and the State was ready to proceed. Under such circumstances, the court correctly denied discharge because of the failure to provide a trial within the sixty-day period provided by the rule. See State ex rel. Hanks v. Goodman, Fla.1971, 253 So.2d 129.
Appellant’s points three and four attack the court’s ruling concerning the admissibility of evidence. We have examined the circumstances under which the evidence was admitted and find that no prejudicial error is indicated.
Appellant’s final point is based upon a claimed error in the court’s refusal to force the State to disclose the name of the confidential informant who was present at the time that defendant made the sale of cocaine to a police officer. We have recently had occasion to discuss the circumstances that are necessary in order to present error where the State has refused to divulge the name of a confidential informant. See Doe v. State, Fla. App.1972, 262 So.2d 11.
Since we have examined each of appellant’s points in the light of the briefs and the record, and since we find that no error has been demonstrated, the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Zamora, 534 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…transaction with which the defendant was charged, and accordingly was a witness thereto, Doe v. State, 262 So. 2d 11, 12 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Kraus v. State, 243 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 247 So. 2d 324 (Fla.1971); see Savinon v. State, 277 So. 2d 58, 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), or acted as a mere tipster, furnishing the police with information which provided a lead in the investigation of the case, State v. Matney, 236 So. 2d 166, 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970). In these cases, the defendant was not charge…
-
Holman v. State, 347 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…ty of a witness testifying, even though the witness is not listed by name, it is not error to permit the witness to testify. Cooper v. State, supra; Pizzo v. State, supra; Armbrister v. State, 320 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1975); Savinon v. State, 277 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1973). Finally, defendant asserts that the trial court committed additional error in refusing to allow a continuance so that defense counsel might revise his closing argument. A trial judge is vested with broad discretion in matter…
-
Drayton v. State, 372 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…formant did not participate in the criminal conduct with which appellant was charged, rather the role of the informant was merely to allow the arresting officer to gain entry to the premises where the criminal conduct occurred. See Savinon v. State, 277 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Doe v. State, 262 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); and Kraus v. State, 243 So. 2d 214 (Fla.3d DCA 1971). Third, although there were references to the informant by appellee during the trial, these references were only peripheral and,…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Terry Michael Hanks & Rudolph Frank Seymour v. The Honorable Murray Goodman, 253 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 1971)
- DOE v. State, 262 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)