Purvis v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Purvis v. State

713 So. 2d 1118, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 9480, 1998 WL 427087

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 27, 1998

DocketNo. 97-2225

StatusPublished

This text of 713 So. 2d 1118 (Purvis 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

Purvis v. State, 713 So. 2d 1118, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 9480, 1998 WL 427087 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges his convictions and sentences on several grounds. We find that one has merit, and we reverse and remand for a new trial. The trial court failed to conduct a full inquiry and to make the required findings when the state committed a discovery violation by calling a witness not disclosed on their witness list. See Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771, 775 (Fla.1971); Hatcher v. State, 568 So.2d 472, 474 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), rev. denied, 577 So.2d 1328 (Fla.1991). We are unable to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the discovery violation and the trial court’s failure to conduct a full inquiry did not prejudice the defense. We are, therefore, required to reverse. See State v. Schopp, 653 So.2d 1016, 1020-1021 (Fla.1995).

MINER, WOLF and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges his convictions and sentences on several grounds. We find that one has merit, and we reverse and remand for a new trial. The trial court failed to conduct a full inquiry and to make the required findings when the state committed a discovery violation by calling a witness not disclosed on their witness list. See Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771, 775 (Fla.1971); Hatcher v. State, 568 So.2d 472, 474 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), rev. denied, 577 So.2d 1328 (Fla.1991). We are unable to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the discovery violation and the trial court’s failure to conduct a full inquiry did not prejudice the defense. We are, therefore, required to reverse. See State v. Schopp, 653 So.2d 1016, 1020-1021 (Fla.1995).

MINER, WOLF and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

713 So. 2d 1118, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 9480, 1998 WL 427087, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/purvis-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack