Zide v. State
| Citation | 212 So.2d 788 |
| Decision Date | 23 July 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 67--1066,67--1066 |
| Parties | Bernard Martin ZIDE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bernard Martin Zide, in pro. per.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Arthur L. Rothenberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before CHARLES CARROLL, C.J., and PEARSON and BARKDULL, JJ.
The appellant, Bernard Martin Zide, was found guilty by a jury on each count of a two-count information. Count one charged that on July 19, 1967, the appellant unlawfully obtained a narcotic drug, to wit, paregoric, by giving a false name and address to obtain the drug in violation of § 398.19(1)(d), Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Count two charged that the appellant violated § 398.19(1)(d) in the same way on July 22, 1967. He was adjudged guilty and sentenced to five years on the first count and two years on the second count, the sentences to run consecutively. The appellant has presented eight points on appeal.
The first three points urge that the trial judge committed reversible error in denying appellant's motion for a continuance of the trial. Appellant was arrested and incarcerated on July 25, 1967. An information was filed on July 31; the appellant was arraigned on August 4 and tried on October 25, 1967. The substance of appellant's argument is that he employed counsel for the purpose of moving the court for a chemical analysis of physical evidence and for the purpose of moving for a continuance. He urges that counsel was neither employed nor prepared for trial.
The appellant was represented by private counsel at his arraignment. Counsel presented motions: for a bill of particulars; to dismiss; for production of reports for copying; for production of evidence; and to dismiss for failure to produce reports in evidence. The court granted only the motion for production of evidence. Where the record reveals, as it does here, that the appellant had an adequate opportunity to procure counsel and that he did procure counsel well in advance of the trial date, it was not error for the trial court to deny a motion for continuance on the day of the trial on the ground that counsel was not prepared for trial. Counsel for the appellant was present at the trial and conducted a vigorous defense. The appellant has failed to support his claim of error upon the denial of a motion for continuance. See Wadsworth v. State, 136 Fla. 134, 186 So. 435, 437 (1939).
Appellant's fourth point claims the court denied him a fair trial by allowing a State's witness to answer certain of the prosecutor's questions which the appellant says were improper. A decision on this point requires a careful reading of the testimony of the State's witness. The State had the burden of proving to the jury that the paregoric appellant was charged with procuring illegally was in fact a narcotic drug....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White v. State, 2--673A142
...People v. Williams (1972), 9 Ill.App. 466, 292 N.E.2d 204; Edelin v. United States (1967), D.C.Ct.App., 227 A.2d 395; Zide v. State (1968), Fla.App., 212 So.2d 788; cert. den'd, 394 U.S. 911, 89 S.Ct. 1026, 22 L.Ed.2d 223; See also, People v. Donnelly (1916), 173 App.Div. 713, 159 N.Y.S. 69......
-
Scarpati v. State, 68--1001
...and that the defendant was accorded a fair if not a perfect trial. Simpson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 211 So.2d 862; Zide v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 788; Lutwak v. United States, 344 U.S. 604, 73 S.Ct. 481, 97 L.Ed. 593. The points raised by the appellant are inadequate for several reas......
-
Monroe v. State
...in Gay v. City of Orlando, Fla.App.1967, 202 So.2d 896, cert. denied, 390 U.S. 956, 88 S.Ct. 1052, 19 L.Ed.2d 1149, and Zide v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 788. The testimony given by the officer constituted harmless error and did not deprive the appellant of a fair Appellant urges that ......
-
Mikenas v. State, 49928
..."triggerman." In the absence of a showing that the trial judge abused his discretion, the ruling will not be disturbed. Zide v. State, 212 So.2d 788 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), cert. denied 394 U.S. 911, 89 S.Ct. 1026, 22 L.Ed.2d 223 (1969). The appellant has failed to make an adequate The appellan......