Garcia v. State

873 So. 2d 426, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 5446, 2004 WL 840223
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Garcia v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 789 So. 2d 1059
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 21, 2004·No. No. 3D03-1746·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Reinardo Garcia, appeals from his convictions and sentences for sale of cocaine and trafficking in cocaine arguing that the trial court abused its discre[427]*427tion by admitting into evidence the cocaine seized from both transactions without requiring the State to establish a complete chain of custody. We affirm based on our finding that the State was not required to establish a complete chain of custody where the record does not demonstrate that there was a probability of tampering with the evidence. Davis v. State, 788 So.2d 308, 310 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Creme v. State, 752 So.2d 1238 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).

Affirmed.

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

Garcia v. State, 873 So. 2d 426, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 5446, 2004 WL 840223 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

873 So. 2d 426 (Garcia v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Creme v. State
752 So. 2d 1238 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
Davis v. State
788 So. 2d 308 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)