ERIC P. DURCAN, 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.
The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the defendant's motions for continuance.
The defendant was convicted of burglary, larceny, and breaking and entering. He appealed, arguing the judge abused his discretion by denying motions f…
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 Cumulative Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
HAVERFIELD, Judge.
Eric Durcan appeals his convictions for three counts of burglary, one count of larce ny and one count of breaking and entering; and contends that the trial judge abused his discretion by denying his motions for continuance so that he could bring in testimony to impeach that of the prosecution’s chief witness. We find the continuance was properly denied.
The general rule is that the granting or denial of a motion for continuance is within the discretion of the trial court and the court’s action on such a motion will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a clear showing that there has been a palpable abuse of that discretion to the disadvantage of the accused, or whereby his rights may have been jeopardized. Mills v. State, 280 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Douglas v. State, 216 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968) and cases cited therein. We conclude defendant has failed to show an abuse of discretion or that any of his rights were jeopardized.
First, we note that the motions failed to comply with the requirements set forth in Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(g) in that the motions were not in writing and contained no certificate of counsel. Cf. Lyles v. State, 312 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).
Second, the proposed testimony which would be later produced merely was cumulative and would only tend to impeach the prosecution witness. See Machin v. State, 213 So. 2d 499 (Fla.3d DCA 1968).
As defendant made no written motion or timely demand therefor, we have also determined that there is no merit in his second argument that he was deprived of his right to a speedy trial. See Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Zeigler v. State, 402 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 1981)…dy trial time in which the trial could have taken place had the continuance been granted. It is clearly established that the decision to grant or deny a motion for continuance is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Durcan v. State, 350 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). The record does not show an abuse of discretion, so this contention is without merit. [*371] Defendant next complains about four separate searches. On the night of the homicide, Officer Yawn was sent to defendant’s house by Chief…
-
Williams v. State, 438 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 1983)…e of the penalty phase when the defense counsel represented that he was unprepared to present any evidence of mitigating circumstances. The granting or denial of a motion for continuance is within the discretion of the trial court. Durean v. State, 350 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Mills v. State, 280 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Douglas v. State, 216 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). This principle remains intact even in situations where the death penalty is of issue. See Cooper v. State, 336 So. 2d 1133 (Fla…
-
Vazquez v. State, 405 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…r contentions raised by the defendant upon this appeal and find them to be without merit. Dupree v. State, 125 Fla. 58, 169 So. 600 (1936); Ho Yin Wong v. State, 359 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 364 So. 2d 886 (Fla.1978); Durcan v. State, 350 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Jackman v. State, 140 So. 2d 627, 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962); § 924.33, Fla.Stat. (1979). The convictions and sentences under review in this case are, accordingly, reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972)
- Hollis Mills v. State, 280 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Lyles v. State, 312 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- MacHin v. State, 213 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Taft Douglas, Jr. v. State, 216 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)