Rosemond v. State, AL-76
| Citation | 489 So.2d 1185,11 Fla. L. Weekly 1233 |
| Decision Date | 30 May 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. AL-76,AL-76 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1233 Eddie Lee ROSEMOND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Michael Allen, Public Defender, Terry P. Lewis, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Gregory G. Costas, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a conviction for sale and delivery of a controlled substance. Rosemond's first contention is the trial court erred in refusing to require the State to disclose the identity of its confidential informant. Secondly, he asserts the trial court erred in sentencing him as a habitual offender and in departing from the recommended guidelines sentence. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Rosemond was charged by information with the sale and delivery of a controlled substance, heroin. After a trial by jury, he was found guilty and sentenced to a term of 30 years. The sentence was enhanced pursuant to a finding by the trial court that Rosemond was a habitual offender.
Prior to trial in this case, Rosemond filed a motion to compel the identity of a witness. During the hearing on this motion, it was brought out that the officer involved in the case had been introduced to Rosemond through an informant. The officer stated that this particular informant had helped her in several cases and the disclosure of his identity would jeopardize his safety and other ongoing investigations. The court denied the motion.
Rosemond predicates his claim for relief upon the argument that the trial judge erred in not compelling the disclosure of the identity of the confidential informant involved in the case. However, this argument was not presented to the trial judge. In fact, it was specifically disavowed by counsel for the defense who stated:
That was never my position, Your Honor, that this person was a confidential informer, so if the Court has indicated that the Court believes he was a confidential informer, then that was not the reason. I wasn't asking that the confidential--that this person be disclosed based on the fact that he was a confidential informer we needed; that that person was not a confidential informer, in fact, just a witness to the transaction--
Further evidence of this fact is revealed in Rosemond's motion to compel identity of witness, wherein he asserted he was entitled to relief pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.220(a)(1)(i), rather than Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.220(c)(2). Therefore, as Rosemond's argument was not the specific contention asserted as legal ground for the motion below, it is not cognizable by this Court on appeal. Steinhorst v. State, 412 So.2d 332, 338 (Fla.1982).
As regards the second issue...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Watson v. State, 85-1496
...criminal behavior. See Walker v. State, 462 So.2d 452 (Fla.1985); Bogan v. State, 489 So.2d 157 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Rosemond v. State, 489 So.2d 1185 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Welsh v. State, 486 So.2d 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Winters v. State, 475 So.2d 1025 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Hopkins v. State,......
-
Pugh v. State, 88-2322
...A mere conclusory statement that a finding of habitual offender was necessary to protect the public is insufficient. Rosemond v. State, 489 So.2d 1185 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Weston v. State, 452 So.2d 95 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). In the instant case, the trial court merely referred to appellant's ......
-
Forrest v. State, s. BM-296
...of the public, without findings of fact to support that conclusion does not satisfy section 775.084(3)(d)."); Rosemond v. State, 489 So.2d 1185, 1186 (Fla 1st DCA 1986) ("generalized reference to [a] prior bad record was insufficient to justify the imposition of an enhanced We reverse also ......
-
Avery v. State, BI-446
...a trial court must state the underlying facts and circumstances relied upon in making such a determination. Rosemond v. State, 489 So.2d 1185, 1186 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). The court's conclusive determination in this case, merely reiterating the words of the statute, is insufficient to justify......