State v. Lazzara

Florida Circuit Courts

State v. Lazzara

47 Fla. Supp. 2d 13

CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida

DecidedFebruary 22, 1991

DocketCase Nos. 87-11196 and 87-12098 (Lower Court Case No. 86-14434)

StatusPublished

This text of 47 Fla. Supp. 2d 13 (State v. Lazzara) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Lazzara, 47 Fla. Supp. 2d 13 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

[14]*14OPINION OF THE COURT

SUSAN C. BUCKLEW, Circuit Judge.

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT Hillsborough County Florida

The Honorable Robert Bonanno, Judge Petition for Writ of Prohibition and Writ of Common Law Certiorari The Honorable Richard Lazzara

OPINION

Befendant/Appellee, Farmer Waddle was charged by Notice to Appear with Exhibiting Obscene Material. The trial court, The Honorable James Arnold, entered an order compelling discovery finding that a “Notice to Appear was not designed nor intended for complex misdemeanor criminal offenses” such as the instant case, and that “Rule 3.125(k) does not preclude the defense from being able to depose the listed state’s witness” in such complex misdemeanor cases. About seven months later the trial court, The Honorable Richard Lazzara, entered an order denying the state’s Motion to Quash Subpoena for Depositions. The state filed a Petition for Writ of Prohibition and Writ for Common Law Certiorari, on August 31, 1987, and on September 17, 1987 the trial court, The Honorable Robert Bonanno, dismissed the case, apparently for failure to abide by the court’s order to compel discovery. The state then appealed the dismissal.

The Petition for a Writ of Prohibition is moot, the trial court, The Honorable Robert Bonanno, having dismissed the case before the appellate court ruled on the Writ. However, the Petition for Writ of Certiorari and Appeal were consolidated for purposes of appeal.

The reviewing court does not believe the trial court, The Honorable Richard Lazzara, erred in denying the state’s Motion to Quash Subpoena for Deposition. Even though Rule 3.125(k) does not provide for depositions in cases where the state has charged a defendant by a Notice to Appear, the court should have inherent authority to order depositions in those few cases where the issues are complicated to prevent unfair prejudice to the defendant. This is such a case, the charge resulting from the execution of a search warrant. This opinion is not intended to conflict with the opinion of the court in the State of Florida v Salma Khan 87-163, Division A.

The reviewing court holds that the trial court, The Honorable Richard Lazzara, did not abuse its discretion and did not depart from the essential requirements of law in denying the Motion to Quash.

[15]*15In addition, the trial court’s, The Honorable Robert Bonanno, order dismissing the case is affirmed.

DONE AND ORDERED in Hillsborough County, Florida, this 22nd day of February, 1991.

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

[14]*14OPINION OF THE COURT

SUSAN C. BUCKLEW, Circuit Judge.

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT Hillsborough County Florida

The Honorable Robert Bonanno, Judge Petition for Writ of Prohibition and Writ of Common Law Certiorari The Honorable Richard Lazzara

OPINION

Befendant/Appellee, Farmer Waddle was charged by Notice to Appear with Exhibiting Obscene Material. The trial court, The Honorable James Arnold, entered an order compelling discovery finding that a “Notice to Appear was not designed nor intended for complex misdemeanor criminal offenses” such as the instant case, and that “Rule 3.125(k) does not preclude the defense from being able to depose the listed state’s witness” in such complex misdemeanor cases. About seven months later the trial court, The Honorable Richard Lazzara, entered an order denying the state’s Motion to Quash Subpoena for Depositions. The state filed a Petition for Writ of Prohibition and Writ for Common Law Certiorari, on August 31, 1987, and on September 17, 1987 the trial court, The Honorable Robert Bonanno, dismissed the case, apparently for failure to abide by the court’s order to compel discovery. The state then appealed the dismissal.

The Petition for a Writ of Prohibition is moot, the trial court, The Honorable Robert Bonanno, having dismissed the case before the appellate court ruled on the Writ. However, the Petition for Writ of Certiorari and Appeal were consolidated for purposes of appeal.

The reviewing court does not believe the trial court, The Honorable Richard Lazzara, erred in denying the state’s Motion to Quash Subpoena for Deposition. Even though Rule 3.125(k) does not provide for depositions in cases where the state has charged a defendant by a Notice to Appear, the court should have inherent authority to order depositions in those few cases where the issues are complicated to prevent unfair prejudice to the defendant. This is such a case, the charge resulting from the execution of a search warrant. This opinion is not intended to conflict with the opinion of the court in the State of Florida v Salma Khan 87-163, Division A.

The reviewing court holds that the trial court, The Honorable Richard Lazzara, did not abuse its discretion and did not depart from the essential requirements of law in denying the Motion to Quash.

[15]*15In addition, the trial court’s, The Honorable Robert Bonanno, order dismissing the case is affirmed.

DONE AND ORDERED in Hillsborough County, Florida, this 22nd day of February, 1991.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 Fla. Supp. 2d 13, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lazzara-flacirct-1991.