Vega v. State

91 So. 3d 156, 2012 WL 1365084, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 6193
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Vega v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 3992
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 20, 2012·No. No. 5D11-2316·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Francisco Vega appeals from his conviction on a single charge of delivery of cocaine, challenging the trial court’s decision not to instruct the jury on the defense of entrapment and also challenging his conviction based upon the constitutional analysis in Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289 (M.D.Fla. 2011).

We affirm as to the entrapment issue without elaboration. See Davis v. State, 937 So.2d 300, 303 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (“[W]hen the evidence is not conflicting and the factual circumstances not in dispute, the determination of whether an accused has been entrapped is an issue that is determined as a matter of law by the trial judge.”). We reject Appellant’s constitutional argument for the reasons explained in Flagg v. State, 74 So.3d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). We recognize that this latter issue is currently pending be[157]*157fore the Florida Supreme Court in State v. Adkins, 71 So.3d 117 (Fla.2011). Accordingly, we will withhold our mandate pending a final disposition of Adkins.

AFFIRMED.

SAWAYA, LAWSON and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

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

Vega v. State, 91 So. 3d 156, 2012 WL 1365084, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 6193 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

91 So. 3d 156 (Vega v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Davis v. State
937 So. 2d 300 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
Flagg v. State
74 So. 3d 138 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
State v. Adkins
71 So. 3d 117 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2011)
Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections
802 F. Supp. 2d 1289 (M.D. Florida, 2011)