Decca v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decca v. State

186 So. 2d 92, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5337

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 10, 1966

DocketNo. 65-858

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 186 So. 2d 92 (Decca 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

Decca v. State, 186 So. 2d 92, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5337 (Fla. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant seeks review of a conviction entered by the trial court in a non-jury trial, upon the charge of unlawful possession and sale of marijuana.

The State produced one witness and the defendant took the stand in his own behalf and offered an alibi. Subsequently, the trial court found him guilty and this appeal ensued.

In his brief, the appellant says:' “ * * * it is obvious that the uncorroborated testimony of one man, in effect, was-[93]*93the basis of the conviction herein.” In light of the opinion of the Supreme Court of Florida, in State v. Sebastian, Fla.1965, 171 So.2d 893, and in the opinion of this court, in Wright v. State, Fla.App.1966, 182 So.2d 264, this is no reason to find reversible error. The appellant also urges that the State should have been required to reveal the name of the confidential informant who led the State’s witness to the time and place where the purchase of marijuana was completed. We reject this contention. The defendant’s alibi could have been established by other witnesses.

Therefore, the conviction, adjudication, and sentence, here under review is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant seeks review of a conviction entered by the trial court in a non-jury trial, upon the charge of unlawful possession and sale of marijuana.

The State produced one witness and the defendant took the stand in his own behalf and offered an alibi. Subsequently, the trial court found him guilty and this appeal ensued.

In his brief, the appellant says:' “ * * * it is obvious that the uncorroborated testimony of one man, in effect, was-[93]*93the basis of the conviction herein.” In light of the opinion of the Supreme Court of Florida, in State v. Sebastian, Fla.1965, 171 So.2d 893, and in the opinion of this court, in Wright v. State, Fla.App.1966, 182 So.2d 264, this is no reason to find reversible error. The appellant also urges that the State should have been required to reveal the name of the confidential informant who led the State’s witness to the time and place where the purchase of marijuana was completed. We reject this contention. The defendant’s alibi could have been established by other witnesses.

Therefore, the conviction, adjudication, and sentence, here under review is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 So. 2d 92, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/decca-v-state-fladistctapp-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack