Burgos-Rivera v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Burgos-Rivera v. State

903 So. 2d 998, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 7536, 2005 WL 1185279

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 20, 2005

DocketNo. 5D04-2213

StatusPublished

This text of 903 So. 2d 998 (Burgos-Rivera v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Burgos-Rivera v. State, 903 So. 2d 998, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 7536, 2005 WL 1185279 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

MONACO, J.

We affirm the judgment and sentence meted out to the appellant, Mariana Bur-gos-Rivera, with respect to her conviction by jury trial of conspiracy to traffic in heroin and trafficking in heroin. Ms. Bur-gos-Rivera argues, first, that the trial court erred in denying her motion to sever her case from that of another defendant. Because the evidence was presented in such a manner that the jury could easily distinguish the acts of each charged person, and could apply the law intelligently and without confusion in determining guilt or innocence, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See Gordon v. State, 863 So.2d 1215 (Fla.2003); Johnson v. State, 720 So.2d 232 (Fla.1998).

Ms. Burgos-Rivera next argues that the trial court erred in giving a “willful blindness” instruction to the jury. While we agree that it was error to give the instruction, we conclude that the error was harm[999]*999less beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986); Hallman v. State, 633 So.2d 1116 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 649 So.2d 233 (Fla.1994).

AFFIRMED.

SHARP, W. and PETERSON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MONACO, J.

We affirm the judgment and sentence meted out to the appellant, Mariana Bur-gos-Rivera, with respect to her conviction by jury trial of conspiracy to traffic in heroin and trafficking in heroin. Ms. Bur-gos-Rivera argues, first, that the trial court erred in denying her motion to sever her case from that of another defendant. Because the evidence was presented in such a manner that the jury could easily distinguish the acts of each charged person, and could apply the law intelligently and without confusion in determining guilt or innocence, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See Gordon v. State, 863 So.2d 1215 (Fla.2003); Johnson v. State, 720 So.2d 232 (Fla.1998).

Ms. Burgos-Rivera next argues that the trial court erred in giving a “willful blindness” instruction to the jury. While we agree that it was error to give the instruction, we conclude that the error was harm[999]*999less beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986); Hallman v. State, 633 So.2d 1116 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 649 So.2d 233 (Fla.1994).

AFFIRMED.

SHARP, W. and PETERSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

903 So. 2d 998, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 7536, 2005 WL 1185279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burgos-rivera-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack