Case ID: so2d_599/html/0283-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Luis MUNOZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 91-871.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    June 9, 1992.
    Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Bruce A. Rosenthal, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Avi J. Litwin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.
    Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and HUBBART, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

The sole point on appeal from the appellant’s conviction for trafficking in cocaine concerns an alleged Richardson violation. The record shows that the state committed no violation of its discovery obligations; thus, no requirement of a Richardson inquiry ever arose. See Palmer v. State, 483 So.2d 496 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), review denied, 494 So.2d 1152 (Fla.1986); Denny v. State, 404 So.2d 824 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

Affirmed.