From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Romo-Jimenez v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
May 18, 2012
114 So. 3d 978 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

Opinion

No. 5D09–3270.

2012-05-18

Juan Javier ROMO–JIMENEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Bob Leblanc, Judge. James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Thomas J. Lukashow, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kellie A. Nielan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.


Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Bob Leblanc, Judge.
James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Thomas J. Lukashow, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kellie A. Nielan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.

Juan Javier Romo–Jimenez challenges the denial of his motion to suppress recordings obtained following the approval of a wiretap and the trial court's sua sponte restriction of the cross-examination of a co-defendant. In addition, Romo–Jimenez raises a Shelton issue. Finding no error, we affirm. See Flagg v. State, 74 So.3d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). We certify that the same issue reviewed in this case is currently pending before the Florida Supreme Court in State v. Adkins, 71 So.3d 117 (Fla.2011). The mandate will be withheld pending final disposition in Adkins.

Shelton v. Sec., Dep't of Corr., 802 F.Supp.2d 1289 (M.D.Fla.2011).

AFFIRMED.

SAWAYA, COHEN and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.




Summaries of

Romo-Jimenez v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
May 18, 2012
114 So. 3d 978 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)
Case details for

Romo-Jimenez v. State

Case Details

Full title:Juan Javier ROMO–JIMENEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Date published: May 18, 2012

Citations

114 So. 3d 978 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)