Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/State v. Valdes

State v. Valdes

443 So. 2d 302
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 27, 1983
Docket83-1134
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 443 So. 2d 302 (State v. Valdes) 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
State v. Valdes, 443 So. 2d 302 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Opinion

443 So.2d 302 (1983)

The STATE of Florida, Appellant,
v.
Armando A. VALDES, Appellee.

No. 83-1134.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

December 27, 1983.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Richard E. Doran, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

Hacker & Matters, Miami, for appellee.

Before NESBITT, FERGUSON and JORGENSON, JJ.

NESBITT, Judge.

The state appeals an order dismissing an information charging Armando Valdes with possession of cocaine, intent to sell or deliver cocaine and trafficking in cocaine. We have jurisdiction. Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(c)(1)(A). We reverse.

Armando Valdes made two unsuccessful attempts to depose two potential state witnesses who were participants in the undercover transaction which led to his arrest. The trial court then ordered the state to produce the witnesses for depositions. The witnesses failed to appear at the time scheduled for the depositions. Thereupon, the lower court dismissed all charges against Valdes as a sanction for the state's failure to produce the witnesses.

It is well established that it is not the responsibility of the prosecution to produce the state's witnesses for depositions. Turiano v. Butterworth, 416 So.2d 1261 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); State v. Adderly, 411 So.2d 981 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); State v. Banks, 349 So.2d 736 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); State v. Roig, 305 So.2d 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Furthermore, as this court stated in State ex rel. Gerstein v. Durant, 348 So.2d 405, 408 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977): "[t]o order the state to do so, or to dismiss a criminal case for failure of the state to do so, constitutes a departure from essential requirements of law."

Accordingly, the order dismissing the charges against Valdes is reversed and the cause is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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

Related

State v. DEVRICK BOYKINS
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2020
Colby v. McNeill
595 So. 2d 115 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
State v. Gonzalez
43 Fla. Supp. 2d 57 (Florida Circuit Courts, 1990)
State v. Ospina
38 Fla. Supp. 2d 19 (Florida Circuit Courts, 1990)
State v. Perez
543 So. 2d 386 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
State v. Brown
527 So. 2d 209 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
Passavant v. State
523 So. 2d 660 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
State v. Elliot
23 Fla. Supp. 2d 154 (Florida Circuit Courts, 1987)
State v. Daise
508 So. 2d 560 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
State v. Gutierrez
502 So. 2d 481 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
State v. Gresko
20 Fla. Supp. 2d 144 (Florida Circuit Courts, 1986)
State v. Gonzalez-Rodriguez
483 So. 2d 807 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
State v. Rodriguez
483 So. 2d 751 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
State v. Del Gaudio
445 So. 2d 605 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
General Ins. Co. v. Ramanovski
443 So. 2d 302 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
443 So. 2d 302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-valdes-fladistctapp-1983.