Case Name: STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Robert JOHNSON, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1987-12-09
Citations: 516 So. 2d 327
Docket Number: No. 87-923
Parties: STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Robert JOHNSON, Appellee.
Judges: DANAHY, C.J., and SCHEB and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 516
Pages: 327–327

Head Matter:
STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Robert JOHNSON, Appellee.
No. 87-923.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Dec. 9, 1987.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Candance M. Sunderland, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Robert Mack, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The state appeals the trial court's order granting a motion to disclose the identity of the state's confidential informant. The state makes a rather compelling argument that since it will not be necessary for it to refer to the informant in its presentation of its case and because the informant is not alleged to have been an active participant, the state's privilege of nondisclosure should have been respected by the trial court. Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957); State v. White, 418 So.2d 411 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Treverrow v. State, 194 So.2d 250 (Fla.1967); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.220(c)(2). Nevertheless, we find no basis by statute or under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(c) which permits the state to appeal the trial court's order, and we no longer have jurisdiction to grant certiorari. McIntosh v. State, 496 So.2d 120 (Fla.1986); Jones v. State, 477 So.2d 566 (Fla.1985).
Appeal dismissed.
DANAHY, C.J., and SCHEB and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.