JAMES WILLIAM JOHNSON AND DUFF CROTHERS, APPELLANTS,
v.
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.
The court held that the trial court erred in placing the burden of proof on the appellants regarding the illegality of the search, despite a prima facie showing of illegality due to the absence of a search warrant.
Appellants were convicted of trafficking in cannabis. The parties stipulated and the trial court found that there was no search warrant, establishing …
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.
BOARDMAN, Judge.
James William Johnson and Duff Croth-ers appeal judgments and sentences for trafficking in cannabis. We reverse.1
The parties stipulated and the trial court in effect found that since there was no search warrant, appellants had made a pri-ma facie showing of the illegality of the search, yet the court went on to nevertheless leave the burden of proof on appellants. Under Bicking v. State, 293 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), and Mann v. State, 292 So. 2d 432 (Fla.2d DCA 1974), this was error compelling reversal.2
Accordingly, appellants’ judgments and sentences are REVERSED and the cause REMANDED for discharge of appellants.
HOBSON, A. C. J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur. . Unfortunately this case has been pending here for nearly two years, through no fault of ours. This deplorable delay was due in part to delay (presumably unavoidable) in transcription of the record and in part to delay on the part of counsel for appellants in filing numerous motions and in failing to provide this court at the outset with a record sufficient to enable this court to properly dispose of this case.
. Of the other points raised by appellants, the challenge of the statute’s constitutionality is without merit, State v. Benitez, 395 So. 2d 514 (Fla.1981), and the other is moot in view of our disposition of this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Walker v. State, 433 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…n shifted to the state to demonstrate that the police officers had acted within a recognized exception to section 901.19(1), Florida Statutes (1981), or that there were exigent circumstances to obviate compliance with that section. Johnson v. State, 411 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). The state failed in carrying this burden despite the hint that the entry into the residence was made pursuant to “hot pursuit.” The record reflects no evidence whatsoever to demonstrate hot pursuit. No doubt, with Manion’s consen…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Benitez, 395 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 1981)
- Bicking v. State, 293 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Mann v. State, 292 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)