M.N. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

M.N. v. State

272 So. 3d 465

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 27, 2019

DocketNo. 3D18-735

StatusPublished

This text of 272 So. 3d 465 (M.N. 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

M.N. v. State, 272 So. 3d 465 (Fla. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See M.F. v. State, 255 So.3d 519, 519 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (When reviewing the adequacy of a Richardson hearing, a "ruling that no [discovery] violation occurred moots any inquiry into whether there was procedural prejudice."); see also Mascolo v. State, 774 So.2d 827, 829 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) ("[T]he trial court found there was no discovery violation. We find that the record supports the decision of the trial court and therefore we find no error.").

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See M.F. v. State, 255 So.3d 519, 519 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (When reviewing the adequacy of a Richardson hearing, a "ruling that no [discovery] violation occurred moots any inquiry into whether there was procedural prejudice."); see also Mascolo v. State, 774 So.2d 827, 829 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) ("[T]he trial court found there was no discovery violation. We find that the record supports the decision of the trial court and therefore we find no error.").

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 So. 3d 465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mn-v-state-fladistctapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack