Sobel v. State, 76-1034
| Decision Date | 30 August 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-1034,76-1034 |
| Citation | 349 So.2d 747 |
| Parties | Robert SOBEL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Stanley M. Goldstein and Geoffrey Charles Fleck, Miami, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Arthur Joel Berger, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before HENDRY, C. J., and PEARSON and NATHAN, JJ.
Appellant Robert Sobel was found guilty by a jury, convicted and sentenced on charges of sale or delivery and possession of a controlled substance, to wit: lysergic acid. Sobel had allegedly sold lysergic acid to a police informant and an undercover officer.
Two errors are argued on appeal. The first concerns the fact that Sobel was charged with the sale and possession of lysergic acid, while the proof adduced at trial was that the substance purportedly sold by the defendant was in fact lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD). Since the two substances are listed in separate schedules of the controlled substances statute, Section 893.03, Florida Statutes, the defendant argues that there was a fatal difference between the charge and the proof presented at trial which requires reversal.
Sobel next contends that he has been denied due process since the police destroyed a taped recording of the transaction which defendant argues would have corroborated his claim that he was never actively involved in the sale and that he, in fact, never even had the illegal substance in his possession.
The testimony reflects that the drug transaction took place in Sobel's car. Sobel was driving and a friend was beside him in the front seat. 1 The officer and informant were in the back seat. Both agree that Sobel never handled the drugs or the money that was paid for them, although they claim that Sobel took part in a discussion over the price of the pills which were purchased. Neither could remember his exact words. Appellant denies that he took part in any conversation regarding the drugs.
The undercover officer had been outfitted with an electronic transmitter which she testified was functioning when she left the police station. She wore the transmitter during the entire course of events.
Another officer had been stationed in a surveillance vehicle carrying a receiver and recording device. This latter officer is the only person who heard the tapes of the transmissions which were received. He testified that he destroyed the tapes because he could only hear indistinct sounds and static. He further testified that he had turned off the recorder when appellant's car got out of range and that the only...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Budman v. State, 77-1210
...Florida's recent opinion in State v. Sobel, --- So.2d ----, Case No. 52,633 (Fla. opinion filed July 20, 1978), quashing Sobel v. State, 349 So.2d 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), appellant's major reliance on this latter case is misplaced. Also, appellant's reliance on Farrell v. State, 317 So.2d 1......
-
State v. Sobel
...This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, in Sobel v. State, 349 So.2d 747 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1977), which directly conflicts with State v. Smith, 342 So.2d 1094 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), and Ludwick v. State, 336 So.2d 701 (Fla.......
-
Campbell v. State
...tapes of the communication, for whatever reason, are not available to the defendant. Campbell relies additionally upon Sobel v. State, 349 So.2d 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) and Mitchell v. State, 358 So.2d 238 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), as requiring suppression of the conversation. Neither of the two c......
-
State v. Mitchell
...decision in this cause was rendered. The district court relied on the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal in Sobel v. State, 349 So.2d 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), and stated that the facts in Sobel were almost identical to those in this case. In State v. Sobel, supra, we quashed the ......