DAN VARRELL, APPELLANT,
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 judge did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence and that any error regarding the information was rendered harmless.
Appellant was convicted of receiving and concealing a stolen rifle. He challenged the admissibility of evidence obtained through a search and the info…
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 Illegal Search cases and more on FLexlaw
HORTON, Judge.
Appellant was adjudged guilty of receiving and concealing stolen property ’that consisted of a .22 calibre rifle. He was sentenced by the Criminal Court of Record for Dade County, after a non-jury trial, to one year in the state penitentiary.
The appellant complains of (1) the failure of the trial judge to exclude certain evidence which he contends was illegally obtained, and (2) an information which charges three separate and distinct offenses in one count. These contentions are not well taken and the judgment is affirmed.
Prior to the trial in this cause, the court conducted a special hearing on a motion to suppress the evidence. At that time, the court was confronted with the testimony of three police officers and the appellant, which revealed a sharp conflict as to whether or not consent to the search was given. The court then denied the motion, finding that there was no illegal search. To reverse this finding would require us to-invade the fact-finding province of the lower court, whose duty it was to resolve the conflicts in the testimony. See Slater v. State, Fla.1956, 90 So. 2d 453.
The original indictment charged the appellant with receiving and concealing a stolen toaster and typewriter in addition to the rifle. During the course of the trial, upon the appellant’s motion, the court dismissed the charge as it related to the toaster and typewriter. Therefore, any alleged error regarding the appellant’s second contention was rendered harmless.
Affirmed.
CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and PEARSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Smith, 193 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…upon conflicting evidence, that the arrest preceded the seizure. The ruling necessitated passing on a factual question, which: was a function entirely within his province. Mixon v. State, Fla.1951, 54 So. 2d 190, 192; Varrell v. State, Fla.App.1957, 98 So. 2d 895. Respondent waived trial by jury and was; tried in the Criminal Court of Record for Dade County; he was found guilty and' sentenced. The conviction being for a misdemeanor, the respondent filed notice of appeal to the circuit court. See Fla.Stat.,…
-
State v. Allen, 17 Fla. Supp. 170 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1960)…e violate the constitutional guaranties (Gaskins v. State, 89 So. 2d 867; Brown v. State, 46 So. 2d 479). Essentially the determination of reasonableness is a factual one from all the circumstances (Chacon v. State, 102 So. 2d 578; Varrell v. State, 98 So. 2d 895; Brown v. State, supra; Longo v. State, 26 So. 2d 818). Clearly a person (Collins v. State, 65 So. 2d 61; Brown v. State, supra) and the immediate premises (Courington v. State, 74 So. 2d 652, and cases cited in the dissent; Brown v. State, supra)…
Authorities Cited
- Slater v. State, 90 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 1956)