Pierre v. State, 579 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). · Go Syfert
Search
Pierre v. State, 579 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jonell PIERRE
v.
The STATE of Florida
No. 90-2445.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Jun 4, 1991.
Published opinion
579 So. 2d 923
1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 5679
1991 WL 92389
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Carol J.Y. Wilson, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant., Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Ivy R. Ginsberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.
Gersten, Goderich, Levy.
Published
PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Jonell Pierre appeals his conviction and sentence for selling cocaine within one thousand feet of a school. We affirm.

The sole issue on appeal is whether the cocaine purchased from appellant was properly admitted into evidence at trial. Appellant contends that there were discrepancies in the chain of custody of the cocaine and therefore it should not have been admitted.

Relevant physical evidence is admissible unless there is some indication of probable tampering. Peek v. State, 395 So.2d 492

(Fla.1980), cert. denied 451 U.S. 964, 101 S.Ct. 2036, 68 L.Ed.2d 342 (1981); Dodd v. State, 537 So.2d 626 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Bernard v. State, 275 So.2d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). The testimony at trial explained any discrepancy in the chain of custody, and did not indicate probable tampering. Walsh v. State, 559 So.2d 624 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).

Affirmed.