LOUIS D. LAMBERTI, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Florida appellate court affirmed denial of new trial where defendant failed to establish Brady violation or newly discovered evidence warranting reversal under United States v. Agars.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion for a new trial where the defendant failed to demonstrate a Brady violation or newly discovered evidence sufficient to warrant a new trial.
[1] Under United States v. …
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 intelligenceAppellant was convicted at trial. The prosecution allegedly failed to provide a witness statement used for impeachment purposes, and defendant later d…
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 Newly Discovered Evidence Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, defendant in the court below, appeals a final order entered by the trial court denying appellant’s motion for a new trial. Appellee, the State of Florida, was the prosecution below.
Appellant’s basic contentions are twofold: (1) that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to grant him a new trial because appellee failed to provide appellant with a witness’s statement used by the prosecution for impeachment purposes and (2) that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to grant him a new trial upon the discovery of certain newly acquired evidence.
We are unable to agree with appellant’s basic contentions in light of the recent United States Supreme Court case of United States v. Agars,-U.S.-, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976).
Other contentions raised by appellant in his brief are without merit.
After carefully reviewing the record, all points in the briefs and arguments of counsel, in light of the controlling principles of law, we are of the opinion that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for a new trial and that he received a full and fair trial.
Having concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated, the final order denying appellant’s motion for a new trial is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Whitehouse v. State, 445 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…78); Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla.1959); Dale v. Ford Motor Co., 409 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Florida First National Bank of Jacksonville v. Dent, 404 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 1st DCA), dismissed 411 So. 2d 381 (Fla.1981); Lamberti v. State, 338 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Dames v. State, 314 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Therefore the judgments and sentences appealed are affirmed. Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976)