LUCILLE QUINCE AND REAMER QUINCE, 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 information was sufficient to charge a lottery violation and the affidavit supported the search warrant.
Appellants were convicted of violating lottery laws. They appealed the sufficiency of the information and the validity of the search warrant.…
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 Lottery Laws cases and more on FLexlaw
ROBERTS, Justice.
Appellants have appealed from verdicts and judgments convicting them of violating the lottery laws and, in their brief on appeal, requested oral argument. Fla. S.Ct. Rule 40, 31 F.S.A., provides that “The application for oral argument shall not be incorporated in the briefs or other bound papers but shall be filed on a separate paper.” ' Pursuant to the settled rule of this court, the application for oral argument is denied, and the cause has been considered on the briefs submitted by the parties.
Only two questions were presented on the appeal: (1) the sufficiency of the information to charge a violation of F.S.A. § 849.09(1) (d), denouncing the aiding or assisting in setting up, promoting or conducting any lottery; and (2) the sufficiency of the affidavit to support a search warrant authorizing the search of both the dwelling and business portions of a building occupied by appellants.
The first point is concluded adversely to appellants’ contention by the decisions of this court in Fletcher v. State, Fla. 1953, 65 So. 2d 845, and Adams v. State, Fla.1953, 66 So. 2d 598.
As to the second point, the contents of the affidavit supporting the search warrant were sufficient to establish a reasonable ground of suspicion and supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to warrant a cautious man in the belief that the dwelling portion of the building was being used to carry on unlawful lottery activities. It was therefore sufficient to support the search warrant, under the authority of Espinola v. State, Fla.1955, 82 So. 2d 601.
Affirmed.
DREW, C. J., and THOMAS and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Valero v. State, 393 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…PER CURIAM. The appellant’s request for oral argument, made not in accordance with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.320, is denied. Cf. Quince v. State, 91 So. 2d 632 (Fla.1957); Haines v. State, 113 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959) (denying requests for oral argument not made in a separate document, but incorporated in the brief, under former Florida Supreme Court Rule 40 and Florida Appellate Rule 3.10(a), respect…
-
Noel Enters., Inc. v. Smitz, 490 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…CA 1959): To require a clerk to search a brief or a bound record to ascertain whether an application for oral argument had been made would impose upon him and his staff an unnecessarily burdensome duty. 113 So. 2d at 602. See also Quince v. State, 91 So. 2d 632 (Fla.1956). In contrast, if a request for oral argument is made by separate document as required by rule 9.320, it is independently docketed, and, except in the very rare instance where oral argument is dispensed with by order of the court, the cas…
Authorities Cited
- Fletcher v. State, 65 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 1953)
- Espinola v. State, 82 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1955)
- Adams v. State, 66 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 1953)