Antone v. State, 50240

Decision Date16 February 1978
Docket NumberNo. 50240,50240
Citation355 So.2d 777
PartiesAnthony ANTONE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Angelo M. Ferlita of Diecidue, Ferlita & Prieto, Tampa, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Charles Corces, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, and T. Edward Austin, Jr., State's Atty., Jacksonville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Antone was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death by the trial judge. He appealed his conviction to us pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(1), Florida Constitution, and Section 921.141(4), Florida Statutes (1975).

Subsequent to the filing of this appeal, the prosecuting attorney filed a motion to supplement the record with information which had not previously been revealed either to him or to the defendant. The substance of the information is that the Florida Department of Criminal Law Enforcement apparently paid substantial fees to the attorneys for Ellis Marlowe Haskew, a co-defendant who negotiated a plea and became the State's principal witness against Antone. In light of this new information, Antone has requested that we remand the case to the trial court for a determination as to whether a new trial should be granted.

Antone contends that the State's failure to reveal the information during the course of pre-trial discovery constitutes a violation of the continuing duty to disclose imposed by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(f), and that the withholding of this information from the defendant resulted in a denial of due process under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and its progeny. Antone asserts that the newly-discovered facts explain Haskew's interest in testifying against Antone, that they bear on the issue of Haskew's credibility since they refute Haskew's statements to the jury that he received nothing from the State other than the benefit of his negotiated plea, and that they are so "materially favorable" to Antone's case that a revelation of those facts might have led to a different result at his trial.

In Williams v. Dutton, 400 F.2d 797, 800 (5th Cir. 1968), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said:

"It is now clear that Brady imposes an affirmative duty on the prosecution to produce at the appropriate time requested evidence which is materially favorable to the accused either as direct or impeaching evidence."

The record shows that defense counsel assiduously sought all relevant data from the State concerning Haskew's bargain, that this bargain was brought out before the jury in an endeavor to discredit Haskew's testimony, and that Haskew's credibility was a dominant issue, if not the dominant issue for the defense, in Antone's trial. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Antone v. Strickland
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • June 13, 1983
    ...to determine whether there had been a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). 1 Antone v. State, 355 So.2d 777 (Fla.1978). After a hearing, the trial court determined that there had not been a Brady violation. On March 27, 1980, the Florida Supreme......
  • Antone v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • March 27, 1980
    ...attorneys for Ellis Marlow Haskew and that such information had not been previously known to the prosecuting attorney. In Antone v. State, 355 So.2d 777 (Fla.1978), we remanded this cause to the trial court for a determination of whether a violation prohibited by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S.......
  • Tafero v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • June 11, 1981
    ...by the state was trivial, as was the testimony of Haskew. This is the significant difference between the instant case and Antone v. State, 355 So.2d 777 (Fla.1978), conviction aff'd. on later appeal, 382 So.2d 1205 (Fla.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 101 S.Ct. 287, 66 L.Ed.2d 141 (1980), i......
  • Henderson v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • February 18, 1999
    ...for discovery violations. See Jones v. State, 709 So.2d 512, 520 (Fla.1998); Gorham v. State, 597 So.2d 782 (Fla.1992); Antone v. State, 355 So.2d 777 (Fla.1978); McArthur v. State, 671 So.2d 867, 869 n. 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (citing Gorham for proposition that the State "is charged with co......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT