Filed: Oct. 10, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed October 10, 2018. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. _ No. 3D17-2306 Lower Tribunal No. 17-441 _ M. F., a juvenile, Appellant, vs. The State of Florida, Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Angelica D. Zayas, Judge. Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Michael W. Mervine, Ass
Summary: Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed October 10, 2018. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. _ No. 3D17-2306 Lower Tribunal No. 17-441 _ M. F., a juvenile, Appellant, vs. The State of Florida, Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Angelica D. Zayas, Judge. Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Michael W. Mervine, Assi..
More
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed October 10, 2018.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D17-2306
Lower Tribunal No. 17-441
________________
M. F., a juvenile,
Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Angelica D.
Zayas, Judge.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant Public
Defender, for appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Michael W. Mervine, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Before SALTER, FERNANDEZ, and LOGUE, JJ.
LOGUE, J.
The juvenile defendant argues on appeal that the trial court erred by not
finding procedural prejudice when it conducted a Richardson1 hearing to address
an alleged discovery violation by the State. The trial court initially ruled that the
State had inadvertently committed a discovery violation by not producing the
property receipt for evidence which had been impounded at the scene. However,
the transcript of the adjudicatory hearing demonstrates that after a subsequent
sidebar conference, the court determined that the “document was provided in
discovery. So there’s no violation.” The ruling that no violation occurred moots
any inquiry into whether there was procedural prejudice.
Affirmed.
1 Richardson v. State,
246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971).
2