Kirton v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kirton v. State

13 So. 3d 1111, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 9966, 2009 WL 2152346

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 21, 2009

DocketNo. 1D09-0402

StatusPublished

This text of 13 So. 3d 1111 (Kirton 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

Kirton v. State, 13 So. 3d 1111, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 9966, 2009 WL 2152346 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, we agree with appellant that the state committed a discovery violation when it failed to disclose a recording of a conversation between appellant and his mother made while appellant was in jail awaiting trial, and that the trial court failed to comply with the requirements of Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla.1971). However, having carefully reviewed the record, we are satisfied to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt “that the defense was not procedurally prejudiced by the discovery violation.” Scipio v. State, 928 So.2d 1138, 1150 (Fla.2006) (citing State v. Schopp, 653 So.2d 1016, 1021 (Fla.1995)). Accord Smith v. State, 7 So.3d 473, 506-07 (Fla. 2009). Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, WEBSTER and CLARK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, we agree with appellant that the state committed a discovery violation when it failed to disclose a recording of a conversation between appellant and his mother made while appellant was in jail awaiting trial, and that the trial court failed to comply with the requirements of Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla.1971). However, having carefully reviewed the record, we are satisfied to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt “that the defense was not procedurally prejudiced by the discovery violation.” Scipio v. State, 928 So.2d 1138, 1150 (Fla.2006) (citing State v. Schopp, 653 So.2d 1016, 1021 (Fla.1995)). Accord Smith v. State, 7 So.3d 473, 506-07 (Fla. 2009). Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, WEBSTER and CLARK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 So. 3d 1111, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 9966, 2009 WL 2152346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kirton-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack