JOSE MARIA QUINTANA, 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 inventory notice of intercepted communications was properly served, even if outside the 90-day statutory period, because it was served within a reasonable time after the defendant's voice was identified.
The appellant was convicted of aiding in conducting a lottery based on evidence including intercepted telephone conversations. The appellant argued th…
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 Wiretap Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant was found guilty after non-jury trial of aiding or assisting in conducting a lottery, in violation of Section 849.09(l)(d), Florida Statutes (1975). This appeal is from the judgment and sentence upon that conviction. Three points are presented; the first urges that the court erred in denying defendant’s motion to exclude the contents of intercepted telephone conversations. The evidence was procured pursuant to a telephone intercept order entered in accordance with Section 934, Florida Statutes (1975). It is specifically urged that the “inventory” provided in the statute was not served within the ninety day period provided for by Section 934.09(7)(e), Florida Statutes (1975). This statute is, in part, as follows:
“Within a reasonable time but not later than ninety days after the termination of the period of an order or extension thereof, the issuing or denying judge shall cause to be served on the persons named in the order or the application, and such other parties to intercepted communications as the judge may determine in his discretion that is in the interest of justice, an inventory . . .”
The record reveals that the inventory was served immediately after the determination by the investigating officers that the defendant’s voice appeared in the conversations. It was, therefore, proper under the portion of the statute above quoted, which provides for the service of the “inventory” upon such other parties to the intercepted communications as the judge may determine in his discretion to be in the interests of justice.
Appellant’s second and third points fail to present error on this record and need not be discussed further. Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Sanderson v. State, 390 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…e 3.380(b), nor was it ever renewed.2 Carter v. State, 380 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); G. W. B. v. State, 340 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. denied, 348 So. 2d 948 (Fla.1977); Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla.1978); Magueira v. State, 352 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). AFFIRMED. FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., J., and JA-MIESON, FRANCES ANN, Associate Judge, concur. . Section 794.011(2), Florida Statutes (1977), provides that a person 18 years or older who commits a sexual battery upon a person 11 y…
-
Bouler v. State, 389 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…)(e), Florida Statutes (1977). Under these circumstances failure to meet the notice provisions of this statute have been held to not render the resulting evidence inadmissible. Hicks v. Florida, 359 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Quintana v. State, 352 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).1 Two recent Florida cases, State v. Goodley, 381 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) and Mata v. State, 380 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), have recognized that a trained narcotics dog’s indications that contraband is present can be s…
-
Carlton O. Daley v. State, 374 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…idence was insufficient to establish his identity as the perpetrator of the crimes for which he was charged. As such, he has waived this contention for appellate review. DeLaCova v. State, 355 So. 2d 1227, 1230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Magueira v. State, 352 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); G. W. B. v. State, 340 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Moreover, our independent review of the record indicates that the evidence, although conflicting, was sufficient to send this case to the jury. Byrd v. State, 297 So. 2d 22,…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence