Opinion ID: 1715141
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Denial of Trial Continuance

Text: Appellant claims that the state's failure to list the cell mate as a witness until the week prior to trial left his counsel with inadequate preparation time, and that the trial court's denying a continuance caused him prejudice. He asserts that the testimony should have been suppressed because the state had knowledge of the cell mate's status in October, yet there was no disclosure until January. Appellant urges further that the trial court failed to make sufficient inquiry into the alleged discovery violation as mandated by Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla. 1971), and Wilcox v. State, 367 So.2d 1020 (Fla. 1979). We disagree. While the state may have improperly delayed the listing of the cell mate as a witness, appellant's counsel had deposed the cell mate with regard to the questioned statements and had even listed the cell mate as appellant's witness. The record clearly establishes that the trial court took these factors into consideration and conducted an extensive evidentiary hearing on appellant's motions for suppression and continuance. In denying the motions, the trial judge specifically found that the state's failure to disclose resulted in no prejudice to appellant. Given these circumstances, we reject appellant's assertions and affirm the trial court.