Pamphile v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pamphile v. State

113 So. 3d 949, 2013 WL 461634, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 1937

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 8, 2013·No. No. 5D12-679·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

See Williams v. State, 768 So.2d 1281, 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (“Given the overwhelming evidence of guilt adduced by the state, we cannot find that the denial of the [950]*950appellant’s motion for a continuance during trial, in order to locate a defense witness, caused any material prejudice to the appellant particularly when it is unknown whether the witnesses’ testimony would have been favorable to the appellant.”).

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, C.J., PALMER and BERGER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

See Williams v. State, 768 So.2d 1281, 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (“Given the overwhelming evidence of guilt adduced by the state, we cannot find that the denial of the [950]*950appellant’s motion for a continuance during trial, in order to locate a defense witness, caused any material prejudice to the appellant particularly when it is unknown whether the witnesses’ testimony would have been favorable to the appellant.”).

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, C.J., PALMER and BERGER, JJ., concur.

Pamphile v. State, 113 So. 3d 949, 2013 WL 461634, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 1937 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

113 So. 3d 949 (Pamphile v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related