Oliva v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Oliva v. State

354 So. 2d 1264, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15235

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 14, 1978

DocketNo. 76-2062

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 354 So. 2d 1264 (Oliva 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

Oliva v. State, 354 So. 2d 1264, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15235 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by Abraham Thomas Oliva, from a judgment of conviction for conspiracy to sell cocaine, and sentence thereon to 5 years in the state penitentiary. Oliva has raised two points on appeal. No error is shown with respect to Oliva’s first contention, that he was denied his right to fully cross examine one of the State’s witnesses, a paid confidential informant. See Crespo v. State, 344 So.2d 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Oliva v. State, 346 So.2d 1066, 1068 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).

The second point on appeal is that the trial court erred in failing to discharge Oliva after he was denied a speedy trial since he was not tried within the time speci[1265]*1265fied in Rule 3.191, Fla.R.Crim.P. While the record reflects that a timely motion for discharge on speedy trial grounds was made, it fails to reflect that the motion was ever heard, considered or ruled on by the trial court. Generally, an appellate court must confine its review to questions which were before the trial court and upon which a ruling adverse to the appealing party was made. See Yost v. State, 243 So.2d 469, 471 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). If we were to consider the question, however, no error is shown as Oliva’s argument is based on “tacking” procedures which do not apply under Florida law. See King v. State, 303 So.2d 389, 391 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); State v. Kurtz, 354 So.2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by Abraham Thomas Oliva, from a judgment of conviction for conspiracy to sell cocaine, and sentence thereon to 5 years in the state penitentiary. Oliva has raised two points on appeal. No error is shown with respect to Oliva’s first contention, that he was denied his right to fully cross examine one of the State’s witnesses, a paid confidential informant. See Crespo v. State, 344 So.2d 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Oliva v. State, 346 So.2d 1066, 1068 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).

The second point on appeal is that the trial court erred in failing to discharge Oliva after he was denied a speedy trial since he was not tried within the time speci[1265]*1265fied in Rule 3.191, Fla.R.Crim.P. While the record reflects that a timely motion for discharge on speedy trial grounds was made, it fails to reflect that the motion was ever heard, considered or ruled on by the trial court. Generally, an appellate court must confine its review to questions which were before the trial court and upon which a ruling adverse to the appealing party was made. See Yost v. State, 243 So.2d 469, 471 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). If we were to consider the question, however, no error is shown as Oliva’s argument is based on “tacking” procedures which do not apply under Florida law. See King v. State, 303 So.2d 389, 391 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); State v. Kurtz, 354 So.2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

354 So. 2d 1264, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oliva-v-state-fladistctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack