IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OF THE STATE OF
v. Appeal No. CRC 03-83 APANO
Opinion filed __________________.
Appeal from a judgment and sentence
entered by the Pinellas County Court
County Judge Sonny Im
Eilam Isaak, Esq.
Attorney for appellant
C. Marie King, Esq.
Assistant State Attorney
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the defendant’s appeal from a judgment and sentence entered by the Pinellas County Court following a jury trial. After reviewing the briefs and record, this Court affirms the judgment and sentence.
defendant was arrested for DUI. She was seen driving without headlights on the
Howard Frankland bridge towards
The defendant raises two issues in this appeal. First, she argues that the trial court erred in sustaining the State’s objection and limiting her cross-examination of the technician who tested the intoxilyzer machine. In support of her argument the defendant relies primarily on portions of the transcript that indicate that the trial court believed it had made an error in ruling on the State’s objection. A complete review of the transcript, however, reveals that the trial court was more concerned with the timeliness of the argument. It appears that the defendant raised, for the first time in her proffer of evidence made after the trial, an alleged discovery violation that related to the State’s objection. The trial court appears to have indicated that the argument may have had some merit and may have resulted in a different decision on the State’s objection, but it was not timely raised at the time the State initially objected. This Court concludes that the trial court properly determined that the issue was untimely raised.
second issue raised in this appeal is that venue was not properly established.
As pointed out by the State, however, if a crime is believed to have been
committed in two counties, venue is proper in either county. See §910.05,
Fla.Stat. (2003). Since the defendant is alleged to have been DUI while driving
back and forth across the Howard Frankland bridge between Pinellas and
Hillsborough counties, venue was proper in either county. The defendant’s
argument that there was no showing the crime was committed in
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the judgment and sentence are affirmed.
AND ORDERED in Chambers at
James R. Case
Nancy Moate Ley
John A. Schaefer
cc: State Attorney
Eilam Isaak, Esq.