State v. Perez

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Perez

493 So. 2d 547, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1929, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9637

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 9, 1986·No. No. 86-916·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Of the two grounds upon which the trial court may arguably have granted the defendants-appellees’ motion to dismiss, one, the failure to produce the alleged confidential informant, is foreclosed by State v. Gonzalez Rodriguez, 483 So.2d 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), and cases cited; the other, based upon the fact that payment to the c.i. was contingent upon the quantity of drugs seized as a result of his efforts, is contrary to State v. Prieto, 479 So.2d 320 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Accordingly, the order under review is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

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

PER CURIAM.

Of the two grounds upon which the trial court may arguably have granted the defendants-appellees’ motion to dismiss, one, the failure to produce the alleged confidential informant, is foreclosed by State v. Gonzalez Rodriguez, 483 So.2d 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), and cases cited; the other, based upon the fact that payment to the c.i. was contingent upon the quantity of drugs seized as a result of his efforts, is contrary to State v. Prieto, 479 So.2d 320 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Accordingly, the order under review is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

State v. Perez, 493 So. 2d 547, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1929, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9637 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

493 So. 2d 547 (State v. Perez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related