02-2893 VALLADARES V. STATE

State: Florida

Court: Florida Third District Court

Docket No: 02-2893 VALLADARES V. STATE

Case Date: 11/24/2004

Preview:NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM A.D., 2004 MAXIMO N. VALLADARES, Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ** ** ** ** ** **
Opinion filed November 24, 2004.

CASE NO. 3D02-2893

LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 97-36232

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Pedro P. Echarte, Jr., Judge. Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Todd G. Scher, Special Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Paulette R. Taylor, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before COPE and GODERICH, JJ., and NESBITT, Senior Judge. PER CURIAM. Maximo degree N. Valladares attempted appeals first his convictions murder, for and first armed

murder,

degree

burglary.

We affirm.

The trial court correctly excluded the testimony of the defense witness, Dr. Alexander Roy. ruled that the proposed testimony The trial court correctly amounted to a defense of See

diminished capacity, which is not recognized in Florida.

State v. Bias, 653 So. 2d 380, 382-83 (Fla. 1995); Chestnut v. State, 538 So. 2d 820, 824 (Fla. 1989). Defendant-appellant Valladares argues that once the court decided to exclude Dr. Roy testimony, the court should have granted a mistrial because the defense case had been prepared on the premise that Dr. Roy the would motion testify. for The trial court

carefully

considered

mistrial

and

correctly

concluded that, to the extent the defense may have proceeded differently excluded, had it known that Dr. Roy's testimony would Under motion be the for

the

defendant of this

was case,

not the

harmed denial

thereby. of the

circumstances

mistrial was within the court's discretion.

See Chamberlain v.

State, 881 So. 2d 1087, 1098 (Fla. 2004); Smithers v. State, 826 So. 2d 916, 930 (Fla. 2002). The defendant complains of a discovery violation by the State. The trial court ruled in the defendant's favor on this See Cohen v. State, As an appropriate

point and granted an appropriate remedy. 581 So. 2d 926, 928 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

remedy was ordered, there is no reversible error.

2

The trial court correctly denied the motion for judgment of acquittal with regard to the charge of attempted first degree murder of Lazaro Valladares. Viewing the evidence in the

required light, the evidence was legally sufficient. v. State, 830 So. 2d 792, 803 (Fla. 2002). Affirmed.

See Pagan

3

Download 02-2893 VALLADARES V. STATE.pdf