FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF
from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Michael J.
L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Daniel Muller, Assistant
Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kaylee D. Tatman,
Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
seeks review of the disposition order that withheld
adjudication on a charge of grand theft firearm and sentenced
him to a term of probation not to exceed his nineteenth
birthday. Because the trial court failed to hold a sufficient
Richardsonhearing when a potential discovery
violation by the State was brought to its attention, we
reverse and remand for a new adjudicatory hearing.
between November 4 and 5, 2017, someone broke into a pickup
truck that was parked at a residence near Bell Shoals Road in
Brandon and stole two rifles and a pistol from inside. The
ensuing police investigation led to the arrest of J.S. and
three codefendants on charges of burglary and grand theft
the start of the adjudicatory hearing, the State had not
disclosed to J.S. any witness whose testimony would place him
near the scene of the burglary and theft or who would place
any of the stolen firearms in his possession. Instead, the
only identified lay witness-Sacory Rodriguez-had given a
statement to the police indicating that he saw the stolen
firearms only after they were brought to his house and
abandoned there. At the adjudicatory hearing, however,
Rodriguez testified that he picked up J.S. and his
codefendants on Bell Shoals Road near the scene of the
burglary and that when he did so J.S. was carrying one of the
on the fact that Rodriguez's testimony materially
differed from his statement provided by the State in
discovery, J.S. requested a Richardson hearing. In
response, the trial court asked whether Rodriguez had been
identified as a witness by the State and whether defense
counsel had deposed him. When defense counsel indicated that
Rodriguez had been identified but had not been deposed, the
trial court denied the request for a further hearing. The
trial court persisted in this ruling even after defense
counsel advised that the State had not disclosed that
Rodriguez's testimony at trial would differ from his
earlier statement to police and that J.S.'s trial
preparation would have been different had he known of this
change by Rodriguez.
conclusion of the adjudicatory hearing, the court found J.S.
guilty of one count of grand theft firearm based on his
possession of recently stolen property. It withheld
adjudication and, as part of the sentence, imposed a variety
of costs. J.S. now appeals the determination of guilt, as
well as two of the costs imposed.
first contends that the trial court erred by refusing to hold
a full Richardson hearing when it was discovered
that the State had failed to inform J.S. that Rodriguez would
provide testimony at trial different from that provided in
his statement to the police. This contention is correct.
Under Richardson [v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla.
1971), ] when the State violates a discovery rule, the trial
court has discretion to determine whether the violation
resulted in harm or prejudice to the defendant, but this
discretion can be properly exercised only after adequate
inquiry into all the surrounding circumstances. State v.
Hall, 509 So.2d 1093 (Fla. 1987). In making such an
inquiry, the trial judge must first determine whether a
discovery violation occurred. If a violation is found, the
court must assess whether the State's discovery violation
was inadvertent or willful, whether the violation was trivial
or substantial, and most importantly, what affect it had on
the defendant's ability to prepare for trial.
Sinclair v. State, 657 So.2d 1138, 1140 (Fla. 1995).
If the court determines that no discovery violation has
occurred, it need not proceed with the other steps, and that
is apparently what the trial court determined in this case.
However, the information ...