Perez v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Perez v. State

151 So. 2d 686, 1963 Fla. App. LEXIS 3572

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 9, 1963

DocketNos. 62-493, 62-494

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 151 So. 2d 686 (Perez 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

Perez v. State, 151 So. 2d 686, 1963 Fla. App. LEXIS 3572 (Fla. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

BARKDULL, Judge.

This appeal brings for review the judgment and sentence entered as a result of the defendant’s conviction on two counts of the Florida Uniform Narcotic Drug Act, Ch. 398, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., to wit: (1) Unlawful sale of a narcotic drug [marijuana] and (2) Unlawful possession of marijuana.

In this appeal the defendant has raised two points, which he alleged constituted reversible error. The first alleged that the trial court’s denial of his motion for production of an informer as a material witness deprived the defendant of his right to be confronted with a witness against him in a criminal prosecution, as guaranteed by the United States Constitution, Amendment VI, and the Florida Constitution, Declaration of Rights, § 11, F.S.A. The second alleged error by the trial court in admitting into evidence certain evidence and testimony obtained during a search and seizure.

We have carefully considered the briefs submitted by the respective parties, together with the record before us, and have found no reversible error. Blackwell v. State, 79 Fla. 709, 86 So. 224, 15 A.L.R. 465; Robertson v. State, 94 Fla. 770, 776, 114 So. 534; Fuller v. State, 159 Fla. 200, 31 So.2d 259. Therefore, the judgment and sentence is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

BARKDULL, Judge.

This appeal brings for review the judgment and sentence entered as a result of the defendant’s conviction on two counts of the Florida Uniform Narcotic Drug Act, Ch. 398, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., to wit: (1) Unlawful sale of a narcotic drug [marijuana] and (2) Unlawful possession of marijuana.

In this appeal the defendant has raised two points, which he alleged constituted reversible error. The first alleged that the trial court’s denial of his motion for production of an informer as a material witness deprived the defendant of his right to be confronted with a witness against him in a criminal prosecution, as guaranteed by the United States Constitution, Amendment VI, and the Florida Constitution, Declaration of Rights, § 11, F.S.A. The second alleged error by the trial court in admitting into evidence certain evidence and testimony obtained during a search and seizure.

We have carefully considered the briefs submitted by the respective parties, together with the record before us, and have found no reversible error. Blackwell v. State, 79 Fla. 709, 86 So. 224, 15 A.L.R. 465; Robertson v. State, 94 Fla. 770, 776, 114 So. 534; Fuller v. State, 159 Fla. 200, 31 So.2d 259. Therefore, the judgment and sentence is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 So. 2d 686, 1963 Fla. App. LEXIS 3572, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perez-v-state-fladistctapp-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack