Maycox v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Maycox v. State

239 So. 2d 851

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 13, 1970

DocketNo. 69-1045

StatusPublished

This text of 239 So. 2d 851 (Maycox 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

Maycox v. State, 239 So. 2d 851 (Fla. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After a trial by the court, the appellant was found guilty of the possession of marijuana and sentenced to one year in prison. The only substantial point presented on this appeal from his conviction and sentence urges reversal because of the state’s failure to reveal the name of a confidential informant to the appellant. It is urged that the evidence at the trial showed that the confidential informant might have given testimony which could have aided the appellant in his defense and that therefore the court erred in not requiring the state to include the informant’s name in a list of witnesses furnished pursuant to Rule 1.220, CrPR, 33 F.S.A.

The record-reveals that the name of the informant was privileged under the holding in Treverrow v. State, Fla.1967, 194 So.2d 250, and was not subject to the exception set forth in Monserrate v. State, Fla.App.1970, 232 So.2d 444.

The remaining points have been examined; they do not present reversible error.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

After a trial by the court, the appellant was found guilty of the possession of marijuana and sentenced to one year in prison. The only substantial point presented on this appeal from his conviction and sentence urges reversal because of the state’s failure to reveal the name of a confidential informant to the appellant. It is urged that the evidence at the trial showed that the confidential informant might have given testimony which could have aided the appellant in his defense and that therefore the court erred in not requiring the state to include the informant’s name in a list of witnesses furnished pursuant to Rule 1.220, CrPR, 33 F.S.A.

The record-reveals that the name of the informant was privileged under the holding in Treverrow v. State, Fla.1967, 194 So.2d 250, and was not subject to the exception set forth in Monserrate v. State, Fla.App.1970, 232 So.2d 444.

The remaining points have been examined; they do not present reversible error.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 So. 2d 851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maycox-v-state-fladistctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack