T.J.M. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

T.J.M. v. State

925 So. 2d 440, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 5047, 2006 WL 888153

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 7, 2006

DocketNo. 5D05-1267

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 925 So. 2d 440 (T.J.M. 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

T.J.M. v. State, 925 So. 2d 440, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 5047, 2006 WL 888153 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Jenkins v. State, 872 So.2d 388 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (To prevail on a motion to continue based upon witness unavailability, the moving party must show: (1) prior due diligence to obtain the witness’ presence; (2) that substantially favorable testimony would be forthcoming; (3) that the witness was available and willing to testify; and (4) that the denial of the continuance would cause material prejudice.).

SAWAYA, ORFINGER and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Jenkins v. State, 872 So.2d 388 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (To prevail on a motion to continue based upon witness unavailability, the moving party must show: (1) prior due diligence to obtain the witness’ presence; (2) that substantially favorable testimony would be forthcoming; (3) that the witness was available and willing to testify; and (4) that the denial of the continuance would cause material prejudice.).

SAWAYA, ORFINGER and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

925 So. 2d 440, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 5047, 2006 WL 888153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tjm-v-state-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack