Segarra v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Segarra v. State

559 So. 2d 698, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 2438, 1990 WL 40341

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 10, 1990

DocketNo. 89-834

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 559 So. 2d 698 (Segarra 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

Segarra v. State, 559 So. 2d 698, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 2438, 1990 WL 40341 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the defendant Fernando Segarra from a judgment of conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess cocaine which was entered below upon an adverse jury verdict. Defendant raises three points on appeal which, we conclude, fail to present reversible error.

First, the trial court did not, as urged, commit reversible error in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss. No showing of entrapment as a matter of law was made below under Cruz v. State, 465 So.2d 516 (Fla.), cert. denied, 473 U.S. 905, 105 S.Ct. 3527, 87 L.Ed.2d 652 (1985); nor was any showing made below of a due process violation under State v. Glosson, 462 So.2d 1082 (Fla.1985), or Hunter v. State, 531 So.2d 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Second, the trial court did not, as urged, commit reversible error in denying defendant’s motion to suppress; clearly, the confidential informant had not been engaged by the state, and therefore was not an agent of the state, at the time the defendant made certain incriminating statements to said informant. See DuBoise v. State, 520 So.2d 260 (Fla.1988). Third, the trial court did not, as urged, commit reversible error in refusing to interview in camera the confidential informant. No showing was made below to require such an in camera interview under State v. Acosta, 439 So.2d 1024, 1026 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). The final judgment of conviction and sentence under review is therefore, in all respects,

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the defendant Fernando Segarra from a judgment of conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess cocaine which was entered below upon an adverse jury verdict. Defendant raises three points on appeal which, we conclude, fail to present reversible error.

First, the trial court did not, as urged, commit reversible error in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss. No showing of entrapment as a matter of law was made below under Cruz v. State, 465 So.2d 516 (Fla.), cert. denied, 473 U.S. 905, 105 S.Ct. 3527, 87 L.Ed.2d 652 (1985); nor was any showing made below of a due process violation under State v. Glosson, 462 So.2d 1082 (Fla.1985), or Hunter v. State, 531 So.2d 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Second, the trial court did not, as urged, commit reversible error in denying defendant’s motion to suppress; clearly, the confidential informant had not been engaged by the state, and therefore was not an agent of the state, at the time the defendant made certain incriminating statements to said informant. See DuBoise v. State, 520 So.2d 260 (Fla.1988). Third, the trial court did not, as urged, commit reversible error in refusing to interview in camera the confidential informant. No showing was made below to require such an in camera interview under State v. Acosta, 439 So.2d 1024, 1026 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). The final judgment of conviction and sentence under review is therefore, in all respects,

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

559 So. 2d 698, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 2438, 1990 WL 40341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/segarra-v-state-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack