Howland v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Howland v. State

412 So. 2d 383, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19439

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 10, 1982

DocketNo. 81-876

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 412 So. 2d 383 (Howland 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

Howland v. State, 412 So. 2d 383, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19439 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

ORFINGER, Judge.

Appellant seeks reversal of his conviction for first degree murder and his sentence of life imprisonment. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for a free transcript of the preliminary hearing.¹ He correctly asserts that a transcript of such hearing may not be denied him merely because he is indigent. Roberts v. La Vallee, 389 U.S. 40, 88 S.Ct. 194, 19 L.Ed.2d 41 (1967); Griffen v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891 (1956). The record, however, does not reflect that the trial court ever denied his request for such transcript. Appellant’s motion requested a transcript of the grand jury proceedings, as well as the preliminary hearing. In the written order, the trial court specifically withheld ruling on both requests, requesting additional citation of authority from both appellant and the state. The record does not reflect that appellant complied with the court’s request or that he took the steps necessary to secure a ruling on the motion. Thus, no issue has been preserved for appeal. See Hernandez v. State, 323 So.2d 318 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).

Thus appellant’s contention that he was denied a free copy of the transcript of the preliminary hearing solely because he was indigent is not supported by the record. The record does show that appellant had been declared indigent for cost purposes, and the court authorized the expenditure of $1,000.00 for expert witnesses and investigative purposes. It would thus appear that a method of procuring the transcript was clearly available. See Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226, 91 S.Ct. 431, 30 L.Ed.2d 400 (1971).

Appellant’s remaining points are without merit. The judgment of conviction and sentence are therefore

AFFIRMED.

SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur.

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

ORFINGER, Judge.

Appellant seeks reversal of his conviction for first degree murder and his sentence of life imprisonment. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for a free transcript of the preliminary hearing.¹ He correctly asserts that a transcript of such hearing may not be denied him merely because he is indigent. Roberts v. La Vallee, 389 U.S. 40, 88 S.Ct. 194, 19 L.Ed.2d 41 (1967); Griffen v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891 (1956). The record, however, does not reflect that the trial court ever denied his request for such transcript. Appellant’s motion requested a transcript of the grand jury proceedings, as well as the preliminary hearing. In the written order, the trial court specifically withheld ruling on both requests, requesting additional citation of authority from both appellant and the state. The record does not reflect that appellant complied with the court’s request or that he took the steps necessary to secure a ruling on the motion. Thus, no issue has been preserved for appeal. See Hernandez v. State, 323 So.2d 318 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).

Thus appellant’s contention that he was denied a free copy of the transcript of the preliminary hearing solely because he was indigent is not supported by the record. The record does show that appellant had been declared indigent for cost purposes, and the court authorized the expenditure of $1,000.00 for expert witnesses and investigative purposes. It would thus appear that a method of procuring the transcript was clearly available. See Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226, 91 S.Ct. 431, 30 L.Ed.2d 400 (1971).

Appellant’s remaining points are without merit. The judgment of conviction and sentence are therefore

AFFIRMED.

SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

412 So. 2d 383, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howland-v-state-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack