ROY HAROLD BISSEMBER
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant a mistrial for an inadvertent discovery violation when no procedural prejudice materially affecting trial preparation is demonstrated.
[1] Under the Richardson standard, appellate review of discovery violations requires examination of whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining whether a vio…
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“[T]he defense is procedurally prejudiced if there is a reasonable possibility that the defendant's trial preparation or strategy would have been materially different had the violation not occurred.”
State v. Schopp standard for assessing prejudice from discovery violations
Roy Harold Bissember appealed a conviction from Miami-Dade County Court, challenging the trial court's response to an alleged discovery violation by t…
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 Discovery Violations cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed November 5, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-1533 Lower Tribunal No. B24-5786 ________________
Roy Harold Bissember, Appellant,
vs.
State of Florida, Appellee.
An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Cristina Rivera Correa, Judge.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Jennifer Rose Thorton, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Richard L. Polin, Chief Assistant Attorney General, and Ryan Schelwat, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER, and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
Affirmed. See O.P-G. v. State, 290 So. 3d 950, 954–55 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“[U]nder Richardson, when a discovery violation is alleged, the standard of appellate review is whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining if a violation occurred and if so, whether it was inadvertent, and not prejudicial to the preparation of the defense.” (citation omitted)); Guillen v. State, 189 So. 3d 1004, 1011 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (assessing the second Richardson prong in light of the defendant’s chosen defense); State v. Rolack, 104 So. 3d 1286, 1288 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (“Prejudice . . . means procedural prejudice materially affecting the opposing parties’ preparation for trial.”); Cox v. State, 819 So. 2d 705, 713 (Fla. 2002) (explaining that “[a]s no prejudice resulted from the State's discovery violation, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant a mistrial” (citation omitted)); State v. Schopp, 653 So. 2d 1016, 1020 (Fla. 1995) (“[T]he defense is procedurally prejudiced if there is a reasonable possibility that the defendant's trial preparation or strategy would have been materially different had the violation not occurred. Trial preparation or strategy should be considered materially different if it reasonably could have benefited the defendant.”); Curry v. State, 283 So. 3d 934, 937 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (finding no abuse of discretion where the trial court “fashioned a remedy to ameliorate any prejudice suffered by the [d]efendant as a result of the
3
inadvertent discovery violation”); Carter v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 778 So. 2d 932, 942 (Fla. 2000) (“Absent a finding to the contrary, juries are presumed to follow the instructions given them.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Schopp, 653 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1995)
- COX v. State, 819 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 2002)
- Grady Carter v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 778 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 2000)
- State v. Rolack, 104 So. 3d 1286 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)
- Sandor Eduardo Guillen v. State, 189 So. 3d 1004 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)
- Curry v. State, 283 So. 3d 934 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)