Garcia v. State, BP-129
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Writing for the Court | JOANOS; SMITH, C.J., and WENTWORTH |
| Citation | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 425,521 So.2d 191 |
| Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 425 Pablo GARCIA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. BP-129,BP-129 |
| Decision Date | 10 February 1988 |
Page 191
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
First District.
Rehearing Denied March 24, 1988.
Page 192
Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, and David A. Davis, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Royall P. Terry, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
JOANOS, Judge.
Appellant Pablo Garcia appeals his conviction and the thirty year sentence imposed after a jury found him guilty of trafficking in cocaine. Appellant raises four issues for review: (1) the trial court's failure to order the state to disclose the identity of a confidential informant, (2) the trial court's failure to conduct an in camera hearing on the issue of disclosure of the confidential informant, (3) the trial court's failure to prohibit the state's use of similar fact evidence, and (4) the trial court's failure to provide clear and convincing reasons for the departure sentence. We affirm the conviction but reverse and remand as to the sentence.
On October 8, 1985, a search warrant was issued for residential premises, based upon an affidavit of a confidential informant recounting a controlled buy of cocaine. The inventory prepared after the search reflects that among the items seized were: (1) cocaine, (2) clear baggies with white residue, (3) $5,180.00 in cash, (4) marijuana, (5) scales, (6) pipes with residue, and (7) a passport.
An information filed October 28, 1985, charged that on October 8, 1985, appellant was knowingly in actual or constructive possession of twenty-eight or more grams of cocaine. The statement of particulars filed by the state places the date and time of the crime charged as October 8, 1985, between 7:30 and 9:30 p.m.
On February 14, 1986, defense counsel filed a motion to compel disclosure of the confidential informant. At the hearing held on the motion, defense counsel argued that during the relevant time period there were several visitors to the residence subsequently searched, and the only direct evidence as to possession of contraband would be that provided by the confidential informant. Counsel stated appellant's possible
Page 193
defense was entrapment, and development of the defense required disclosure of the identity of the confidential informant. The prosecutor's response was that the state did not intend to refer to the confidential informant at trial, the confidential informant was not a participant in the search warrant, and the confidential informant would not be called as a witness at trial. The trial court denied the motion seeking disclosure of the identity of the confidential informant.On May 12, 1986, the state filed notice of similar fact evidence which would show that on October 7, 1985, appellant was in actual or constructive possession of cocaine. Then on June 2, 1986, just before trial, the state filed an amended statement of particulars which reflected the date and time of the offense to be:
On or between October 7, 1985 and October 8, 1985; approximately between 12:00 a.m. October 7, 1985 and 11:59 p.m. October 8, 1985.
Defense counsel argued the amended statement of particulars added another day and time to the original statement, and moved to bar all testimony concerning the suggestion of cocaine at a party on October 7th, on the ground that it did not go to the charge set forth in the information. The prosecutor argued the evidence was close in time to execution of the warrant, it showed that appellant produced cocaine at a party, and that a witness testified appellant said, "I have a lot that I want to move."
The trial court ruled that the evidence would be admissible and was sufficiently relevant to the state's purpose. Defense counsel requested a continuance, on the ground that the evidence required a change in strategy. This motion was also denied as was a motion in limine, seeking to exclude testimony relating to alleged acts of appellant on any day other than October 8, 1985.
Testimony at trial indicated that on October 7, 1985, Joseph Nolan introduced appellant to Craig Ferber. Later, appellant and Nolan went to Ferber's residence. On the night of October 7, 1985, appellant, Nolan, Ferber, Ferber's girl friend, and Diaz snorted cocaine from two small baggies allegedly produced by appellant. On the same evening, at the Ferber residence, a confidential informant purchased cocaine from Nolan. A search warrant was served approximately eight hours after the controlled buy.
After the controlled buy but before service of the warrant, three of the persons who had spent the evening of October 7th at the Ferber residence left the premises. Police officers stopped Ferber and another man outside the house, and arrested them for possession of cocaine and trafficking in cocaine. Appellant and another man remained in the house, and were there at 8:00 p.m. on October 8th, when the search warrant was served.
The detectives serving the warrant knocked and announced their presence. They kicked the door open when they heard someone running away from the front room of the house. One detective pursued appellant into the kitchen and observed his right hand extended toward a garbage container. The subsequent search disclosed a plastic bag containing 82.6 grams of cocaine lying on top of the garbage in the container. Drug paraphernalia and cash were also found in the house.
Ferber testified that appellant and his friend Diaz came to Ferber's house, because there had been a quarrel at Nolan's house. According to Ferber, appellant pulled out a small amount of cocaine, and asked Ferber if he wanted a snort. Ferber said appellant had two baggies--one containing a gram or so, and the other containing about seven grams. Ferber then testified that after they had "done a little bit," appellant asked him if he [Ferber] could move some. Ferber replied that he would see what he could do.
The jury found appellant guilty of trafficking in cocaine. A presentence investigation (PSI) report was prepared, which indicated that appellant had been convicted of one prior offense, possession of cocaine, on October 23, 1983, in Monroe County. Appellant served thirty days in the county
Page 194
jail, and was placed on two years probation for that prior offense.The recommended guideline sentence was 4 1/2 to 5 1/2 years. The trial court entered an order finding appellant an habitual felony offender, and departed from the guideline sentence, giving as reasons therefor:
(1) that appellant committed the instant offense while on active probation for possession of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Campbell v. State, No. 88-2599
...dealer. This reason is invalid, because being a drug dealer is an inherent component of the crime of drug trafficking. Garcia v. State, 521 So.2d 191 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Rivera v. State, 543 So.2d 441 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Laurent v. State, 542 So.2d 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Young v. State, ......
-
State v. Paille, No. 90-02659
...by section 90.404(2)(b)1, Florida Statutes (1985). The lack of such notice is also subject to harmless error analysis. Garcia v. State, 521 So.2d 191, 196 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Defense counsel took the victim's deposition ten months prior to trial at which she testified to the similar acts i......
-
Hill v. State, No. 1D18-3273
...a confidential informant only when the defendant shows that the disclosure is necessary for a specific defense. See Garcia v. State , 521 So. 2d 191, 194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (holding that the "defendant must allege a specific possible defense" and "must show that the informant's testimony i......
-
Duhart v. State, No. 89-1540
...L.Ed.2d 342 (1981); Treverrow v. State, 194 So.2d 250 (Fla.1967); State v. Fernandez, 546 So.2d 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Garcia v. State, 521 So.2d 191 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); State v. Griffin, 512 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); State v. Perez, 438 So.2d 436 (Fla. 3d DCA...
-
Campbell v. State, 88-2599
...dealer. This reason is invalid, because being a drug dealer is an inherent component of the crime of drug trafficking. Garcia v. State, 521 So.2d 191 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Rivera v. State, 543 So.2d 441 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Laurent v. State, 542 So.2d 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Young v. State, ......
-
State v. Paille, 90-02659
...by section 90.404(2)(b)1, Florida Statutes (1985). The lack of such notice is also subject to harmless error analysis. Garcia v. State, 521 So.2d 191, 196 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Defense counsel took the victim's deposition ten months prior to trial at which she testified to the similar acts i......
-
Hill v. State, 1D18-3273
...a confidential informant only when the defendant shows that the disclosure is necessary for a specific defense. See Garcia v. State , 521 So. 2d 191, 194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (holding that the "defendant must allege a specific possible defense" and "must show that the informant's testimony i......
-
Duhart v. State, 89-1540
...L.Ed.2d 342 (1981); Treverrow v. State, 194 So.2d 250 (Fla.1967); State v. Fernandez, 546 So.2d 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Garcia v. State, 521 So.2d 191 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); State v. Griffin, 512 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); State v. Perez, 438 So.2d 436 (Fla. 3d DCA...