Roy Harold Bissember v. State of Florida

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: November 5, 2025
• Docket: 3D2024-1533
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed November 5, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-1533 Lower Tribunal No. B24-5786 ________________

Roy Harold Bissember, Appellant,

vs.

State of Florida, Appellee.

An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Cristina Rivera Correa, Judge.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Jennifer Rose Thorton, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Richard L. Polin, Chief Assistant Attorney General, and Ryan Schelwat, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER, and GOODEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See O.P-G. v. State, 290 So. 3d 950, 954–55 (Fla. 3d DCA

2019) (“[U]nder Richardson, when a discovery violation is alleged, the

standard of appellate review is whether the trial court abused its discretion

in determining if a violation occurred and if so, whether it was inadvertent,

and not prejudicial to the preparation of the defense.” (citation omitted));

Guillen v. State, 189 So. 3d 1004, 1011 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (assessing the

second Richardson prong in light of the defendant’s chosen defense); State

v. Rolack, 104 So. 3d 1286, 1288 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (“Prejudice . . . means

procedural prejudice materially affecting the opposing parties’ preparation

for trial.”); Cox v. State, 819 So. 2d 705, 713 (Fla. 2002) (explaining that “[a]s

no prejudice resulted from the State's discovery violation, the trial court did

not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant a mistrial” (citation omitted));

State v. Schopp, 653 So. 2d 1016, 1020 (Fla. 1995) (“[T]he defense is

procedurally prejudiced if there is a reasonable possibility that the

defendant's trial preparation or strategy would have been materially different

had the violation not occurred. Trial preparation or strategy should be

considered materially different if it reasonably could have benefited the

defendant.”); Curry v. State, 283 So. 3d 934, 937 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (finding

no abuse of discretion where the trial court “fashioned a remedy to

ameliorate any prejudice suffered by the [d]efendant as a result of the 2 inadvertent discovery violation”); Carter v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco

Corp., 778 So. 2d 932, 942 (Fla. 2000) (“Absent a finding to the contrary,

juries are presumed to follow the instructions given them.”).