JAMES M. NIELSEN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
JAMES M. NIELSEN, APPELLANT,
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
393 So. 2d 1188
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1981)
Caution
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
BASKIN, Judge.
We affirm the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to suppress cocaine seized without a warrant. Appellant clearly appeared to be drunk when he entered his car and fumbled for his keys. The circumstances afforded the officer approaching the car a plain view of the contraband, State v. Ruiz, 360 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), and probable cause to arrest. Smith v. State, 363 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); State v. Harris, 281 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 400 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…r, as stated in Croft, supra, at 158 So. 455, that “a charge attempting to define the offense which does not cover material elements of the offense is necessarily misleading and prejudicial to the accused" [e. s.]; accord, Ingram v. State, supra, at 393 So. 2d 1188. The “error” in question here obviously does not fall within this category. While this distinction between material and immaterial omissions has not previously been articulated in this fashion in Florida, numerous cases from other jurisdictions hav…1 / 2
-
Worthey v. State, 395 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…amental error, but was affirmatively shown to have been harmless.5 Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1979); James v. State, 393 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Bolen v. State, 375 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). Affirmed. . Compare Hodge v. State, 393 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), in which the issue was properly preserved, and the defendant’s conviction of robbery was therefore reversed. . We similarly did not directly pass upon the - question in Smith v. State, 375 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) since our…
-
Holmes v. State, 412 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…t result in any miscarriage of justice or injuriously affect the substantial rights of either, and therefore it was clearly within the contemplation of the harmless error statutes.4 I would affirm the judgment. I have not overlooked Hodge v. State, 393 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) in which the court, in a brief per curiam opinion, citing Bell v. State, supra, reversed a robbery conviction and remanded, for a new trial because the trial court erroneously had denied a requested instruction that intent to depr…
Authorities Cited
- Smith v. State, 363 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Morris v. State, 360 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- State v. Ruiz, 360 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- State v. Burl Stanley Harris, Jr., 281 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)