STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
JOSEPH DALEY, ROQUE CAVAZOS, AND JEROMY AUGSTEN, RESPONDENTS
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 court held that the automatic standing rule, previously established in Jones v. United States, has been overruled by the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Salvucci.
The District Court of Appeal certified a question regarding a defendant's automatic standing to challenge searches and seizures when charged with poss…
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 Automatic Standing cases and more on FLexlaw
ALDERMAN, Justice.
The District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, has certified the following question:
Does a defendant have automatic standing to challenge the legality of a search or seizure if he is charged with an offense that includes, as an element of that offense, possession of the seized material at the time of the contested search and seizure?
Daley v. State, 387 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1980).
Relying upon Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960), and United States v. Salvucci, 599 F. 2d 1094 (1st Cir. 1979), holding that the automatic standing rule announced in Jones was still the law, the district court held that the defendants in this case had automatic standing to challenge the legality of the searches and seizures, and it reversed the trial court’s findings in this regard.
Because the Supreme Court had granted certiorari in United States v. Salvucci, the district court certified this question to us. Subsequent to certification, however, the Supreme Court reversed the First Circuit’s decision in United States v. Salvucci and overruled the automatic standing rule of Jones v. United States. United States v. Salvucci, U.S. , 100 S.Ct. 2547, 65 L.Ed.2d 619 (1980).
In view of the Supreme Court’s decision in Salvucci, we remand this cause to the district court for reconsideration. See also Rawlings v. Kentucky, - U.S. -, 100 S.Ct. 2556, 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980).
It it is so ordered.
OVERTON, ENGLAND and MCDONALD, JJ., concur. ADKINS, J., Acting C. J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (92 total)
-
Campbell v. State, 571 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 1990)…tencing court, a mitigating factor once found cannot be dismissed as having no weight. To be sustained, the trial court’s final decision in the weighing process must be supported by “sufficient competent evidence in the record.” Brown v. Wainwright, 392 So. 2d 1327, 1331 (Fla.1981). Hopefully, use of these guidelines will promote the uniform application of mitigating circumstances in reaching the individualized decision required by law. Based on the foregoing, we affirm the convictions and the sentences, with…1 / 2
-
Gudinas v. State, 693 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 1997)…eight to each of them”), petition for cert, filed, No. 96-7631 (U.S. Jan. 22, 1997).16 A review of the record reveals sufficient competent evidence to support the trial court’s weighing of the non-statutory mitigation. Campbell; Brown v. Wainwright, 392 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 1981). Furthermore, we agree with the State that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting as a statutory miti-gator Gudinas’ claim that his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to th…
-
Beasley v. State, 774 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 2000)…day. This outburst included kicking and throwing things. Based upon that testimony, the trial court did not err in determining that Beasley’s trial behavior was not “unusually good” and, thus, was not proven as a mitigator. See Brown v. Wainwright, 392 So. 2d 1327, 1331 (Fla.1981). In Campbell, the Court, citing Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978), defined a mitigating circumstance as “ ‘any aspect of a defendant’s character or record and any of the circumstances of the offens…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 92 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1960)
- United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1980)
- Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98 (U.S. 1980)
- United States v. Salvucci, 599 F.2d 1094 (1st Cir. 1979)
- Barnes v. State, 387 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Daley v. State, 387 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)