Court Opinion

ID: 9956913
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-03 14:03:03.460413+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:58.675161
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                          Opinion filed April 3, 2024.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D22-1393
                      Lower Tribunal No. F21-10388
                          ________________

                      Armando Lazaro Cordovi,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                         The State of Florida,
                                  Appellee.

     An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Teresa
Pooler, Judge.

      Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Nicholas A. Lynch, Assistant
Public Defender, for appellant.

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

Before FERNANDEZ, LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.
      Affirmed.   See Thach v. State, 342 So. 3d 620, 625 (Fla. 2022)

(affirming denial of motion for continuance after mid-trial amendment to

information “using the prejudice standard and engaging in a fact-specific

individualized inquiry”); Lopez v. State, 888 So. 2d 693, 699 (Fla. 1st DCA

2004), aff’d, 974 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 2008) (“Many courts have concluded that

a hearsay statement made in a 911 call is not testimonial, because the

statement is not made in response to police questioning, and because the

purpose of the call is to obtain assistance, not to make a record against

someone.”); Thompson v. State, 247 So. 3d 706, 710 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)

(holding 911 calls can be admitted “as either a spontaneous statement

pursuant to section 90.803(1) . . . or an excited utterance pursuant to section

90.803(2), [Florida Statutes (2022)]”).

                                      2