WILLIAM OATMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion For Continuance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On this appeal, the defendant, who was found guilty of the possession of heroin and possession of drug paraphernalia, urges that the court erred in failing to discharge him pursuant to Rule 3.191, CrPR, 33 F.S.A., the speedy trial rule. Appellant admits that the record shows his motion for continuance was made prior to the expiration of the time limit. He relies, however, upon the proposition that the continuance was necessary because the State had failed to comply with the rules requiring discovery.
We need not discuss whether a defendant is entitled to discharge under such circumstances because the record does not support appellant’s position that his motion for continuance was made necessary by the State’s action. Appellant moved for an order of the court requiring certain discovery. No such order was ever entered. Appellant made no attempt to secure such an order nor did he call to the court’s attention the fact that such an order was necessary to his defense. Actually, it appears that there was no need for such discovery inasmuch as the only witnesses testifying against the appellant were police officers and an investigator who participated in the apprehension of the appellant.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Leeman v. State, 357 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 1978)…efore attempting to show prejudice. The defendant made no attempt to secure an order requiring the State to comply with the rule. Nor did he call to the court's attention the fact that such an order was necessary to his defense. See Oatman v. State, 289 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). The defendant has failed to demonstrate reversible error on this point. The trial court correctly denied defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal. See Lynch v. State, 293 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1974); Hoover v. State, 212 So. 2d…
-
Diaz v. State, 323 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…32 So. 2d 44; Ricks v. State, Fla.App.1970, 242 So. 2d 763; Reis v. State, Fla.App.1971, 248 So. 2d 666; Hemmerle v. City of Wilton Manors, Fla.App.1971, 251 So. 2d 146; Starling v. State, Fla.App.1972, 263 So. 2d 645; Oatman v. State, Fla.App.1974, 289 So. 2d 431; Gray v. State, Fla. App.1974, 296 So. 2d 612; McNeal v. State, Fla.App.1974, 303 So. 2d 698; Rule 6.7(g), F.A.R.; Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234, 88 S.Ct. 992, 19 L.Ed.2d 1067; Neil v. Riggers, 409 U.S. 188, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401. See…
-
Young v. State, 330 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See: Oatman v. State, Fla.App.1974, 289 So. 2d 431; State v. Kelley, Fla.App.1975, 322 So. 2d 581.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence