Court Opinion

ID: 9895684
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-08 15:04:17.818647+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:38.389856
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                       Opinion filed November 8, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D22-0500
                       Lower Tribunal No. F19-5276
                          ________________

                         Jean Claude Philippe,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                          The State of Florida,
                                  Appellee.

     An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Carmen
Cabarga, Judge.

     Maria T. Arsuaga, P.A., and Maria T. Arsuaga Byrne, for appellant.

    Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Linda Katz, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and EMAS and BOKOR, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.
      Affirmed. See Fernandez v. State, 21 So. 3d 155, 157 (Fla. 4th DCA

2009) (explaining that “[t]he use of an interpreter at trial is a matter within the

trial court’s discretion” and noting approval of the trial court’s procedural

safeguards including permitting cross-examination of the “State-enlisted”

translator); see also Major v. State, 979 So. 2d 243, 244–45 (Fla. 3d DCA

2007) (“It is well settled that the state’s non-compliance with discovery rules

does not mandate automatic reversal and, therefore, it is essential that the

defendant either raise a timely objection or request a hearing to allow the

trial court to specifically rule on the issue.”); Garcia v. State, 327 So. 3d 947,

948 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (“Because Appellant did not timely bring the

discovery violation to the trial court’s attention, we agree with the State that

the argument was not preserved . . . .”); Johnson v. State, 114 So. 3d 1012,

1013–14 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (instructing that “[i]n order to preserve

improprieties of a trial judge for appellate review, an objection must be made

contemporaneously with the prejudicial conduct or comments” and that “not

every act or comment with potential to be interpreted as demonstrating less

than total neutrality on the part of the trial judge, will be deemed fundamental

error”).

                                        2