FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-1622

_____________________________

ALLEN COOPER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Stewart E. Parsons, Judge.

November 20, 2018

PER CURIAM.

Allen Cooper walked into a Tallahassee bank, threatened the 

teller with a gun, and left with $3,200 in cash. At Cooper’s trial for 

robbery with a firearm, his counsel conceded in opening 

statements that Cooper robbed the bank. Cooper himself testified

and likewise admitted to the robbery. The only real dispute at trial 

was whether Cooper used a gun. He said he did not; the teller said 

he did. The jury concluded he did, and the trial court sentenced 

Cooper to a ten-year mandatory-minimum term. 

Cooper now raises two issues on appeal. He first argues that 

the trial court failed to conduct a timely and adequate Richardson

inquiry after an alleged discovery violation was raised mid-trial.

See Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971). When Cooper’s 
2

girlfriend was testifying, the prosecutor sought to have her identify 

Cooper’s Facebook page. The night before trial, Cooper posted a 

statement saying, “Tomorrow I will be taking a very long, forced 

hiatus. To be specific, very likely ten years.” Defense counsel 

objected that the statement had not been disclosed, but the court 

ultimately allowed the girlfriend to identify the Facebook page and 

for the post to come in during Cooper’s testimony. 

When on notice of a potential discovery violation, “1) the court 

must determine whether a discovery rule has been violated; and 2) 

if the court finds a violation, it must assess whether the violation 

was inadvertent or willful, trivial or substantial, and whether it 

has prejudiced the opposing party’s ability to prepare for trial.” 

Parker v. State, 225 So. 3d 1008, 1010 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) 

(citations omitted). But a court’s failure to conduct a proper 

Richardson inquiry is subject to a harmless error analysis. See

State v. Schopp, 653 So. 2d 1016, 1021 (Fla. 1995). We conclude 

that the error in the court’s Richardson inquiry—if there was any 

error—was harmless.

Cooper next argues that the trial court erred in striking a 

portion of his testimony. During cross-examination, the prosecutor 

asked why Cooper had made the statement on Facebook. Cooper 

responded:

Because I was telling my friends and family who have 

stuck by me through this, thank you for supporting me 

because I have a big support group who knows me and 

knows this and knows that I’m manning up right here, 

right now, and I’m not trying to get out of anything other 

than what you’re trying to charge me with what I didn’t 

have. You wouldn’t even come off a plea bargain; so, of 

course, I’m walking in here talking about I’ll likely get ten 

years.

The prosecutor objected and the trial court struck Cooper’s answer 

because it referenced plea discussions. 

On appeal, Cooper claims the trial court’s action denied him 

the ability to explain the Facebook post and therefore an 

opportunity to present a full and fair defense. The portion of 

Cooper’s response talking about the prosecutor’s plea offer was 
3

inadmissible. See § 90.410, Fla. Stat. (2016). But even if the court 

erred in striking the rest of Cooper’s response, the error was

undoubtedly harmless. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1139 

(Fla. 1986). Cooper’s Facebook post suggested he was going to 

prison for ten years. It did not suggest Cooper used a gun during 

the robbery, which was the only issue at trial. Given that defense 

counsel and Cooper admitted he was at least guilty of robbery, 

Cooper’s inability to explain the Facebook post could not have 

contributed to the verdict.

AFFIRMED.

MAKAR, WINOKUR, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Candice Brower, Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, 

and Michael J. Titus, Assistant Regional Conflict Counsel, 

Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Kaitlin Weiss, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.