ANDREW ALLEN, 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 reversed a burglary conviction because the trial court erred in denying a continuance motion when the state failed to respond to a discovery demand under criminal procedure rules.
A trial court must grant a continuance when the state violates discovery rules and the defendant requests additional time to prepare.
[1] A trial court must grant a continuance when the state violates criminal discovery rules and the defendant requests additional time to prepare for trial.
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“I have not been given any kind of evidence, what type of proof they got against me. They say 'witnesses'. He hasn't told me whether there is one or more than one. They haven't explained what kind of evidence.”
Allen's statement in his motion for continuance explaining why he needed additional time to prepare for trial
Andrew Allen was convicted of burglary of a dwelling. His public defender timely demanded discovery under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.220, but the state failed to…
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 Prosecutorial Duty To Disclose cases and more on FLexlaw
RAWLS, Judge.
Andrew Allen was convicted of the crime of burglary of a dwelling and sentenced.
The issue on this appeal is whether the trial court erred in failing to grant appellant’s motion for continuance on the ground that the state had failed to respond to his demand for discovery.
Pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.220, an assistant public defender, who had been appointed to represent Allen, timely filed a written demand upon the prosecuting attorney for all evidence discoverable under said rule. The state failed to respond. Immediately prior to trial Allen, having decided that he desired to represent himself,1 moved for a continuance upon the ground, inter alia: “. . .1 have not been given any kind of evidence, what type of proof they got against me. They say ‘witnesses’. He hasn’t told me whether there is one or more than one. They haven’t explained what kind of evidence.” The trial court, after observing that Allen’s motion was made “when the venire is out here, been duly qualified”, denied the motion for continuance.
This court’s opinion in Lavigne v. State, First DCA Case No. EE-365, opinion filed June 1, 1977, not yet reported requires reversal. It is undisputed that the state violated a salient Rule of Criminal Procedure. Failure on the part of a trial court to make a full inquiry under such circumstances mandates a reversal. Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971).
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
BOYER, C. J., and SMITH, J., concur. . The trial court retained Allen’s appointed counsel as his standby attorney.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wilcox v. State, 356 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…ht to its attention is reversible error without regard to the harmless error doctrine. Cumbie v. State, 345 So. 2d 1061 (Fla.1977); Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971); Lavigne v. State, 349 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Allen v. State, 346 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Hardison v. State, 341 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Kruglak v. State, 300 So. 2d 315, 316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Rembert v. State, 284 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Carnivale v. State, 271 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Garcia v…
Authorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)