RAUL ELIAS DAIZI, 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.
Raul Elias Daizi appealed his conviction and sentences, raising challenges to the admission of his confession, hearsay testimony, and the legality of consecutive sentences. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction and sentences, finding the confession was properly admitted after the trial court determined its voluntariness, the hearsay objection was not preserved for appeal, and the consecutive sentences were lawful.
The court held that: (a) the trial court's acceptance of the police officer's testimony and oral denial of the suppression motion constituted a sufficient determination of voluntariness without requiring a specific written finding; (b) the hearsay objection was not preserved for appeal because no objection was made below on hearsay grounds, and in any event, the objection had no merit because the contents of the out-of-court statements were never admitted in evidence; and (c) the consecutive sentences were entirely lawful, with the defendant eligible for parole after serving three years of the aggregate sentences.
[1] A trial court properly discharges its responsibility to determine the voluntariness of a confession by accepting the testimony of the interrogating officer and denying th…
[2] A specific trial court finding of voluntariness is not fatal to the admission of a confession.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“it appears with unmistakable clarity that the trial court understood its responsibility to determine the voluntariness of the defendant's confession and properly discharged such responsibility”
Establishes the standard for reviewing a trial court's determination of voluntariness without a specific written finding
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDaizi was convicted after trial. The trial court conducted a hearing on a motion to suppress Daizi's confession and, accepting the testimony of the in…
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 Conviction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The final judgment of conviction and sentences under review by this appeal are affirmed upon a holding that: (a) it appears with unmistakable clarity that the trial court understood its responsibility to determine the voluntariness of the defendant’s confession and properly discharged such responsibility at the conclusion of the hearing on the motion to suppress herein by stating that it accepted the testimony of the interrogating police officer herein [which established the voluntariness of said confession] and that it was denying the motion to suppress, as it appears that a specific trial court finding of voluntariness under these circumstances is not fatal to the admission of said confession and evidence, Peterson v. State, 382 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1980), affirming, 372 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); (b) the defendant did not preserve for appellate review the point on the admissibility of officer Roberson’s testimony relating to the complainant’s two out-of-court statements as no objection was made below on the ground now urged on appeal, to wit: hearsay, and in any event, the belated hearsay objection has no merit as the contents of the two out-of-court statements were never admitted in evidence, see e. g., Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701, 703 (Fla.1978); Black v. State, 367 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 378 So. 2d 342 (Fla.1979); compare Van Gallon v. State, 50 So. 2d 882 (Fla.1951); (c) the consecutive sentences imposed in this cause are entirely lawful although we interpret those sentences to mean that the defendant will be eligible for parole after he has served a total of three years of the aggregate of the two sentences imposed herein; see e. g., §§ 775.087(2Xb), 947.16(1), Fla.Stat. (1979); see also Brown v. United States, 256 F. 2d 151 (5th Cir. 1958); 18 U.S.C.A. § 4205 (Supp.1980); and (d) the remaining points on appeal have no merit.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dante Dino, Jr. v. State, 405 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…rd finding encompasses a finding of voluntariness is correct to the extent it means voluntariness on the insanity issue. This type of record finding is, in my view, exactly what is contemplated by the “unmistakable clarity” test. See Daizi v. State, 396 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (“unmistakable clarity” test satisfied by record indication that the trial court gave credence to testimony which showed voluntariness). But the problem here is that while the record demonstrates with unmistakable clarity that the…
-
Waldemar Morales v. State, 456 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla.1978); Daizi v. State, 396 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).…
-
Daizi v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 436 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…la. 4th DCA 1983); Pannier v. Wainwright, 423 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) and Hardy v. Greadington, 405 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). We acknowledge that the Third District has ruled on the legality of petitioner’s sentences in Daizi v. State, 396 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). The Florida Supreme Court’s opinion in State v. Gibson, 436 So. 2d 32 (Fla.1983), indicates that there is a question regarding the legality of the petitioner’s sentences. However, the question presented by this petition is not a…
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
- Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1978)
- Van Gallon v. State, 50 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1951)
- Anton Kevin Peterson v. State, 382 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1980)
- Black v. State, 367 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Anton Kevin Peterson v. State, 372 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Emory Newton Brown v. United States, 256 F.2d 151 (5th Cir. 1958)