STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
JERRY LINDSAY, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 search of the motel room was legal and affirmed the conviction, but reversed the sentence due to errors in the sentencing score sheet.
A motel manager, concerned for a guest who had not paid and was unresponsive, called the police. Officers insisted the guest open the door, and upon e…
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 Community Sanction Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, J.
We grant the Motion for Rehearing and substitute the following opinion.
In the initial opinion, we did not discuss defendant’s cross-appeal relating to his search and seizure issue. Although the testimony at trial was conflicting, the court could have found the following: Lindsay had been staying at Day’s Inn for several days, paying each day early in the morning. The manager of the motel, after check-out time on a day in.which Lindsay had not paid and after calling the room three times without response, went to the room and knocked. When there was no response after the knocking continued for fifteen minutes, the manager attempted to open the door but found it to be dead-bolted. Fearing for Lindsay’s well-being, she called the police.
When the officers arrived, they insisted Lindsay open the door. Although Lindsay indicated he needed no assistance, he invited the officers into the room. He appeared “pretty out of it.” While in the room, the officers observed in an open gym bag a plastic baggie containing what the officers believed to be cocaine. It was. We find the search to have been legal.
The State’s appeal alleged that the court scored the wrong offense as the primary offense and also failed to add an additional twelve points because of a community sanction violation. See rule 3.703(17), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. We agree with the State on both issues and reverse for resentencing.
The conviction is AFFIRMED; the sentence is REVERSED for correction of the score-sheet and resentencing.
ANTOON, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. State, 156 So. 3d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…t or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer. R. Regulating Florida Bar 4-1.7(a) (emphasis added).1 Where one public defender has a conflict of interest, that conflict is imputed to the entire public defender’s office. Ward v. State, 753 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). “As a general rule, a public defender’s office is the functional equivalent of a law firm. Different attorneys in the same public defender’s office cannot represent defendants with conflict [*1124] ing interests.” Bouie v. State…1 / 2
-
Gerri Toneatti v. State, 805 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…on. See id. The court viewed the Office of the Public Defender of a given circuit as a “firm” for purposes of construing the disciplinary rules governing conflicting interests of clients and imputed disqualification. See id.; see also Ward v. State, 753 So. 2d 705, 708 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); R. Regulating Fla. Bar. 4-1.10.2 [*115] This view was adopted by the Florida Supreme Court in Bouie v. State, 559 So. 2d 1113, 1115 (Fla.1990), wherein the court held that as a general rule, a public defender’s office canno…
-
Brower v. State, 267 So. 3d 524 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)…d 1119, 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (citations omitted). “[B]y requiring an ethically conflicted attorney from the [Public Defender's] Office to represent the petitioner, the trial court would be denying effective assistance of counsel.” Ward v. State, 753 So. 2d 705, 708 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); see also Young v. State, 189 So. 3d 956, 961 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016); Smith, 156 So. 3d at 1126. While section 27.5303 permits the trial court to inquire as to the nature of the conflict, the court is not permitted to inquire in…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence