RUBEN MENA, 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.
Ruben Mena was convicted of first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder. On appeal, Mena challenged the admissibility of his statements to police, the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal, and the denial of a motion to continue trial and withdraw counsel. The appellate court affirmed all convictions and sentences, finding no reversible error.
The trial court did not err in any of the three rulings. The consent to enter the premises was freely and voluntarily given, making the arrest lawful and the subsequent statements admissible. The evidence was sufficient to submit the charges to the jury, and the motions to continue and withdraw counsel were untimely and lacked valid grounds.
[1] A defendant's statements to police are not subject to suppression if obtained after a lawful entry into the defendant's home based on freely and voluntarily given consent…
[2] A trial court does not err in denying a motion for judgment of acquittal when the evidence of guilt is sufficient to submit the case to the jury.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“the record indicates that the aforesaid consent was freely and voluntarily given to the police to enter the defendant's premises”
Establishes that the consent to enter the home was valid and not coerced, thus supporting the lawfulness of the arrest and admissibility of statements.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice obtained consent from the defendant's live-in girlfriend to enter his home and arrest him. The defendant subsequently made statements to police…
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 Motion To Continue Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the final judgments of conviction and sentences under review. The defendant has failed to demonstrate any reversible error in the three contentions he raises on appeal. First, we are not persuaded that the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s pre-trial motion to suppress the defendant’s statements to the police. The thrust of the contention here appears to be that the police unlawfully entered the defendant’s home to arrest the defendant because the consent the police obtained from his live-in girlfriend to enter the premises was a coerced consent — thereby tainting (a) the arrest of the defendant effected in his home and (b) the statements of the defendant subsequently given to the police. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963).
We cannot agree with this analysis inasmuch as the record indicates that the aforesaid consent was freely and voluntarily given to the police to enter the defendant’s premises. Schneckcloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); Denehy v. State, 400 So. 2d 1216 (Fla.1981); Plant v. State, 336 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).
Second, the trial court did not err in denying defense motions for a judgment of acquittal. The evidence of guilt in this case was more than sufficient to submit to the jury on the charges of first degree murder and attempted first degree murder. Buford v. State, 403 So. 2d 943 (Fla.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1164, 102 S.Ct. 1039, 71 L.Ed.2d 320 (1982); Sireci v. State, 399 So. 2d 964 (Fla.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 984, 102 S.Ct. 2257, 72 L.Ed.2d 862 (1982); Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120, 1123 (Fla. 1981), aff'd, 457 U.S. 31, 102 S.Ct. 2211, 72 L.Ed.2d 652 (1982); Mead v. State, 438 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
Third, no error was committed in denying a defense motion to continue the trial and to allow defense counsel to withdraw as counsel for the defendant. No valid grounds existed for these motions. The motions were untimely presented at the outset of trial and the entire matter was a transparent ploy by the defendant himself to avoid going to trial. See Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.190(g)(2), (3).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Francois v. State, 137 So. 3d 1186 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…buse its discretion by denying McKay’s motion for a continuance where he was represented by the public defender and an attorney he had retained appeared in court on the day of trial and requested a continuance to prepare. Likewise, in Mena v. State, 451 So. 2d 1012, 1013 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), this Court found no error in the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for a continuance and to allow defense counsel to withdraw as counsel for the defendant, which was made on the day of trial. See also Hurtado v…
-
Maret v. State, 605 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…t’s request to represent himself and obtain a continuance made on the day of trial was both untimely and an obvious ploy to avoid going to trial; it was therefore properly denied. Robards v. Rees, 789 F. 2d 379, 384-85 (6th Cir.1986); Mena v. State, 451 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Moreover, the defendant’s conduct subsequent to this request indicated that he was vacillating in this request, as he later indicated that he did not want to represent himself or was unsure about the matter and requested that he…
Authorities Cited (13 total)
- Wong SUN v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1963)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973)
- Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (U.S. 1982)
- Delbert Lee Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 1981)
- Sireci v. State, 399 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 1981)
- Buford v. State, 403 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 1981)
- Federated Publ'ns, Inc. v. Swedberg, 456 U.S. 984 (U.S. 1982)
- Jacks v. Duckworth, 456 U.S. 984 (U.S. 1982)
- Denehy v. State, 400 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 1980)
- Lakewood Bank & Tr. Co. v. Abramson, 454 U.S. 1164 (U.S. 1982)