Florida District Courts of Appeal, 1966

Decca v. State

Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided May 10, 1966 · No. 65-858 · Barkdull, Hendry, Pearson

186 So. 2d 92; 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5337 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

Pearson v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1969)
Drayton v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)
Laughlin v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)
Nieves v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

The appellant seeks review of a conviction entered by the trial court in a non-jury trial, upon the charge of unlawful possession and sale of marijuana.

The State produced one witness and the defendant took the stand in his own behalf and offered an alibi. Subsequently, the trial court found him guilty and this appeal ensued.

In his brief, the appellant says:' “ * * * it is obvious that the uncorroborated testimony of one man, in effect, was-*93the basis of the conviction herein.” In light of the opinion of the Supreme Court of Florida, in State v. Sebastian, Fla.1965, 171 So.2d 893, and in the opinion of this court, in Wright v. State, Fla.App.1966, 182 So.2d 264, this is no reason to find reversible error. The appellant also urges that the State should have been required to reveal the name of the confidential informant who led the State’s witness to the time and place where the purchase of marijuana was completed. We reject this contention. The defendant’s alibi could have been established by other witnesses.

Therefore, the conviction, adjudication, and sentence, here under review is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.