RODOLFO TIOFILO JIMENEZ, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed defendant's cocaine trafficking conviction, rejecting all four grounds for reversal including suppression of abandoned luggage, impeachment evidence, jury instructions, and mistrial denial.
A conviction for trafficking in cocaine is affirmed where the defendant abandoned luggage containing contraband, no impeachment evidence was actually introduced, jury instructions adequately covered the defense theory, and prosecutor's comments did not warrant mistrial.
[1] A defendant who abandons luggage has no reasonable expectation of privacy in its contents, and police search of abandoned luggage does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant Rodolfo Tiofilo Jimenez was convicted of trafficking in cocaine. Police searched luggage that the defendant had abandoned.…
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 Abandonment Of Property cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant Rodolfo Tiofilo Jimenez’ conviction of trafficking in cocaine is affirmed.
We find no merit in the four points raised by the defendant for reversal.
First, no error was committed in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress as the record plainly establishes that the defendant abandoned the luggage which the police searched herein, see State v. Jones, 454 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); State v. Oliver, 368 So. 2d 1331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. dismissed, 383 So. 2d 1200 (Fla.1980).
Second, no error was committed in ruling that certain similar crimes evidence could be used to impeach the defendant because the defendant did not elect to testify in this cause and the said impeachment evidence was never introduced below, see Luce v. United States, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 460, 83 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984).
Third, no error is presented in the denial of the defense-requested jury instruction because same was adequately covered by the court’s general instructions to the jury. Driver v. State, 46 So. 2d 718, 719-20 (Fla.1950); Register v. State, 44 So. 2d 73, 74 (Fla.1950).
Fourth, no reversible error is shown based on the trial court’s denial of a motion for mistrial as the prosecutor’s comments to the jury were not that egregious. Cobb v. State, 376 So. 2d 230, 232 (Fla.1979).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Raydo, 713 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 1998)…adopted the reasoning of Luce by holding that, because the defendant did not testify, the impeachment issue had not been preserved for appellate review.2 See Parker, 563 So. 2d at 1131-32. Addressing a similar preservation issue in Jimenez v. State, 480 So. 2d 705, 706 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), the Third District, relying on Luce, also held that “no error was committed in ruling that certain similar crimes evidence could be used to impeach the defendant because the defendant did not elect to testify in this cause a…
-
Taylor v. State, 583 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Jimenez v. State, 480 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).…
-
Palmer v. State, 571 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…ve and except the stacking of the consecutive minimum mandatory terms. Fonseca v. State, 547 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Montoya v. State, 489 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Wright v. State, 487 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Jimenez v. State, 480 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Wiggins v. State, 460 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Orantas v. State, 452 So. 2d 68 (Fla.1984). As to the stacking of the minimum mandatories, the way the sentences are worded the defendants, as sentenced, must first serve a mi…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (U.S. 1984)
- State v. Oliver, 368 So. 2d 1331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Cobb v. State, 376 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 1979)
- Driver v. State, 46 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 1950)
- Perez v. State, 454 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- State v. Jones, 454 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)