Office of the Attorney General

SLIP OPINION

AG number: 8028Style: Melendres vs. State
Jurisdiction: 3rd DCADate issued: August 11, 1999
AG HEADNOTE

Perjury during agency investigation
A police department internal affairs investigation qualifies as an "official proceeding" from which perjury charges can be brought, the 3rd DCA said.
The court affirmed a Miami-Dade police officer's conviction for perjury committed during official proceedings, based on false statements he made during an internal affairs probe of allegations that he improperly altered a time sheet. The DCA rejected the officer's contention that his sworn statement was not given during an official proceeding.
"Certainly, the procedures set in place for police internal affairs investigations, and the protections afforded therein to the officer under investigation, are adequate to be considered as 'official proceedings' under the perjury statute," the DCA said.


NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES
TO FILE REHEARING MOTION
AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF FLORIDA
THIRD DISTRICT
JULY TERM, A.D., 1999

NELSON MELENDRES, **

Appellant, **
CASE NO. 98-1338
vs. **
LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 96-29823
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, **

Appellee. **


Opinion filed August 11, 1999. An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Dade County, Stanford Blake, Judge.

Richard J. Diaz, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Douglas J. Glaid, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.


Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and GODERICH, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Nelson Melendres, a Miami-Dade police officer, was convicted of "perjury committed during official proceedings" following an incident where he improperly altered his time sheet and then made false statements concerning the alteration during a police internal affairs investigation. We find that the conviction was supported by sufficient evidence, and affirm.
We disagree with Melendres's contention that his sworn statement given during a police internal affairs investigation was not given during an "official proceeding." Certainly, the procedures set in place for police internal affairs investigations, and the protections afforded therein to the officer under investigation, are adequate to be considered as "official proceedings" under the perjury statute. See §§ 112.532-533, Fla. Stat. (1995).
Melendres also argued that it was improper for the trial judge to exclude much of his evidence concerning Melendres's prior difficulties with one of his police sergeants, Sergeant Bruckner. We disagree. The problems between Melendres and Bruckner occurred some three years (and more) prior to the incident in question, and were properly excluded as irrelevant when there was no showing that Bruckner had any connection whatsoever to the alteration of Melendres's time sheet.
The voir dire issue raised by Melendres was not preserved for appellate review.
For the aforementioned reasons, we affirm.