ABRAHAM THOMAS OLIVA, 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.
Affirmed conviction for conspiracy to sell cocaine where defendant failed to preserve speedy trial claim and cross-examination argument lacked merit.
A defendant's speedy trial claim is not preserved for appeal when the trial court never rules on the motion, and tacking procedures do not apply under Florida law to extend speedy trial deadlines.
[1] Speedy trial claims are not preserved for appellate review when the trial court record does not reflect that a timely motion for discharge was heard, considered, or ruled…
[2] Tacking procedures do not apply under Florida law to extend speedy trial deadlines under Rule 3.191, Fla.R.Crim.P.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAbraham Thomas Oliva was convicted of conspiracy to sell cocaine and sentenced to 5 years in prison. A timely motion for discharge on speedy trial gro…
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 Conspiracy To Sell Cocaine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by Abraham Thomas Oliva, from a judgment of conviction for conspiracy to sell cocaine, and sentence thereon to 5 years in the state penitentiary. Oliva has raised two points on appeal. No error is shown with respect to Oliva’s first contention, that he was denied his right to fully cross examine one of the State’s witnesses, a paid confidential informant. See Crespo v. State, 344 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Oliva v. State, 346 So. 2d 1066, 1068 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
The second point on appeal is that the trial court erred in failing to discharge Oliva after he was denied a speedy trial since he was not tried within the time speci fied in Rule 3.191, Fla.R.Crim.P. While the record reflects that a timely motion for discharge on speedy trial grounds was made, it fails to reflect that the motion was ever heard, considered or ruled on by the trial court. Generally, an appellate court must confine its review to questions which were before the trial court and upon which a ruling adverse to the appealing party was made. See Yost v. State, 243 So. 2d 469, 471 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). If we were to consider the question, however, no error is shown as Oliva’s argument is based on “tacking” procedures which do not apply under Florida law. See King v. State, 303 So. 2d 389, 391 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); State v. Kurtz, 354 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rodriguez v. State, 393 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Oliva v. State, 354 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 359 So. 2d 1217 (Fla.1978); State ex rel. Canup v. Langston, 341 So. 2d 1069, 1070-71 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Schulkin v. State, 287 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(a)(2), (f)(ii).…
-
Williams v. State, 452 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…rule and does not go to the fundamental fairness of a trial. See Davis v. Wainwright, 547 F. 2d 261 (5th Cir.1977). Violation of the speedy trial rule can be raised on direct appeal but only if it was first raised in the trial court. Oliva v. State, 354 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Because this error is not fundamental, and because it could have been raised on direct appeal, it is not proper to raise it under rule 3.850. Appellant also alleges his trial counsel was ineffective because of the failure to mov…
-
Parsons v. State, 691 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…ER CURIAM. Affirmed. Pandula v. Fonseca, 145 Fla. 395, 199 So. 358 (1940); Forte v. State, 662 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); McCall v. State, 463 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Hernandez v. State, 360 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Oliva v. State, 354 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Broge v. State, 288 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Schulkin v. State, 287 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973).…
Authorities Cited
- Yost v. State, 243 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- State v. Kurtz, 354 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- King v. State, 303 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Dade Cnty. Emps., 346 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Artemio Crespo v. State, 344 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)