Robinson v. State

531 So. 2d 1046, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2301, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4450, 1988 WL 102570
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Robinson v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1209
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 5, 1988·No. No. 87-352·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Eugene Ruben Robinson, challenges the judgment and sentence entered after he was found guilty of possession of cocaine. We reverse.

Although the appellant filed a timely written demand for discovery, the state failed to comply. On the day of trial, the appellant’s counsel filed a motion to compel discovery and/or impose sanctions. The trial court denied the motion without an adequate inquiry as to whether the discovery violation was inadvertent or willful, whether it was trivial or substantial, and whether it had a prejudicial effect on the appellant’s ability to prepare for trial as required by Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla.1971). The trial court’s failure to hold a Richardson hearing was per se reversible error. See Smith v. State, 500 So.2d 125 (Fla.1986); Talavera v. State, 528 So.2d 1258 (Fla.2d DCA 1988).

We, accordingly, reverse the appellant’s conviction and sentence and remand for a new trial.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

CAMPBELL, C.J., and RYDER and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.

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

Robinson v. State, 531 So. 2d 1046, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2301, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4450, 1988 WL 102570 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

531 So. 2d 1046 (Robinson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Smith v. State
500 So. 2d 125 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1986)
Richardson v. State
246 So. 2d 771 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1971)