JAMES FREDERICK MEAD, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appellate court affirmed conviction, holding that police had probable cause to arrest and search defendant's vehicle based on the odor of marijuana, and that defendant failed to preserve for review an alleged prosecutorial misconduct claim by not filing a motion for mistrial.
Police had probable cause to arrest and search defendant's vehicle based on the officer's testimony of smelling marijuana, and defendant failed to preserve a prosecutorial misconduct claim by not filing a motion for mistrial.
[1] A defendant fails to preserve for appellate review an alleged improper prosecutorial argument unless defense counsel files a motion for mistrial after the trial court ove…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA trooper stopped defendant's vehicle after smelling a strong odor of marijuana emanating from it, arrested the defendant driver, and searched the veh…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Drug Possession cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The judgment of conviction and sentence under review is affirmed upon a holding that: (a) the motions to suppress evidence and statements filed by the de-fendant were properly denied in the trial court as the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant Dixon v. State, 343 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Berry v. State, 316 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), and probable cause to search the defendant’s vehicle; Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925), adopted by § 933.19, Fla.Stat. (1979); McGowan v. State, 351 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), based on Trooper B.
A. Adriance’s testimony that he smelled a strong odor of marijuana emanating from the defendant’s vehicle prior to stopping the vehicle, arresting the defendant driver and searching the said vehicle; and (b) the defendant failed to preserve for appellate review the propriety of an alleged improper argument made by the prosecuting attorney in final argument at the trial of this cause because defense counsel did not, as required by law, make a motion for mistrial based on the alleged inflammatory argument after counsel’s objection thereto had been overruled by the trial court. Clark v. State, 363 So. 2d 331, 335 (Fla.1978); see also State v. Cumbie, 380 So. 2d 1031 (Fla.1980).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Isidro Rodriguez v. State, 433 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…, 357 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Jones v. State, 360 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Tennant v. State, 205 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967). See Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla.1978); Clark v. State, 363 So. 2d 331 (Fla.1978); Mead v. State, 381 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Atkinson v. State, 378 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Hamilton v. State, 152 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963); Jackson v. State, 107 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958). His failure precludes relief on this issue. Next, Rodriguez present…
-
Vega v. Travelers Indem. Co., 520 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…ty was uncontroverted. The jury could not reasonably have returned a zero verdict. See Short v. Ehrler, 510 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (uncontro-verted expert testimony warranted award of some damages); Valdez v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 381 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Banyas v. American Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 359 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Based on both the evidence adduced at trial and the statutory provisions, Travelers must reimburse Mrs. Vega for the remaining hospital and physician char…
-
Alan v. Kidwell, 394 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…s appeal were not preserved below by appropriate objection, motion, or request for instruction. State v. Cumbie, 380 So. 2d 1031 (Fla.1980); Clark v. State, 363 So. 2d 331 (Fla.1978); Bailey v. State, 393 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Mead v. State, 381 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Simpson v. State, 211 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). Kidwell’s claim that his trial counsel was ineffective cannot properly be raised for the first time on direct appeal and is a matter to be presented to the trial court under Fl…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (U.S. 1925)
- Clark v. State, 363 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 1978)
- State v. Cumbie, 380 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 1980)
- Dixon v. State, 343 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Berry v. State, 316 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- McGOWAN v. State, 351 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)