ALEXANDER H. WILES
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a first-degree murder conviction and death sentence, finding that all issues raised on appeal had been previously decided by the court adversely to the appellant. The court also reviewed the evidence to ensure the interests of justice did not require a new trial.
No reversible error was found, and the interests of justice do not require a new trial. The issues raised by the appellant have been previously determined by this Court adversely to his contentions.
“We have carefully considered the record in the light of the briefs presented by the respective parties and we find that each and every of the questions presented by the appellant have been determined in and by former opinions of this Court adversely to the several contentions of appellant.”
This quote establishes the court's primary reason for affirming the conviction: the issues raised on appeal had already been decided unfavorably to the appellant in prior cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlexander H. Wiles was indicted, tried, and convicted of first-degree murder in the Circuit Court of Duval County. He was sentenced to death and appea…
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 Affirmance Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, having been indicted, tried and convicted in the Circuit Court of Duval County of the crime of murder in the first degree, and having been adjudged guilty and sentenced to death by electrocution, perfected his appeal to this Court.
He has presented here 32 questions for our consideration, contending that the court below committed reversible error by acts of omission or commissio'n which several acts constitute the basis for the questions presented.
We have carefully considered the record in the light of the briefs presented by the respective parties and we find that each and every of the questions presented by the appellant have been determined in and by former opinions of this Court adversely to the several contentions of appellant.
Our conclusion is that an opinion in this case repeating the several enunciations which we have made in former cases would be of no service to the Bench or Bar.
We have also, in conformity with sub-paragraph 2 of Sec*639tion 924.32 Florida Statutes 1941 (same F.S.A.), carefully reviewed the evidence to determine if the interests of justice require a new trial and find that such condition does not prevail.
No reversible error having been made to appear, the judgment is affirmed.
So ordered.
THOMAS, C. J., TERRELL, CHAPMAN, ADAMS, ,SE-BRING and BARNS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Arwood v. Deborah I. Sloan (Eaton), 560 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…6 (Fla.1963). In the present ease there has been cohabitation without marriage, and where that is so, the presumption is reversed: a presumption will arise in favor of a resulting trust, rather than a gift. See Williams v. Bullington, 159 Fla. 618, 32 So. 2d 273, 275-76 (1947).1 Moreover, even where there is a presumption of gift, the presumption is not conclusive and may be rebutted by proof of the real intention of the payor. Dames v. Dames, 149 So. 2d at 572. The intent of the parties cannot be establish…1 / 2