STATE
v.
MAVIGLIA
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 appellant lacked standing to challenge the search and seizure because he did not establish ownership or lawful occupancy of the premises.
The appellant was convicted of bookmaking based on overwhelming evidence. He challenged the admission of evidence seized during his arrest, arguing it…
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 Unlawful Search And Seizure cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was convicted by a jury of the crime of bookmaking as defined in section 849.25, Florida Statutes 1953. The evidence produced by the state overwhelmingly supported the charge preferred against the appellant in the information. No evidence was submitted by him.
The appellant contends that the court below erred in admitting evidence seized by law enforcement officers in the building in which he was arrested. The contention is without merit. It is unnecessary to determine whether the entry and search were made pursuant to *93a valid search warrant. It was not shown (in fact the appellant denied) that he was the owner, lessee or lawful occupant of the building. He was in no position to raise the question whether there had been an unlawful search and seizure. United States v. DeVasto (C.C.A. 2d), 52 Fed. 2d 26 (certiorari denied, 284 U.S; 678, 76 L.ed. 573, 52 S. Ct. 138); Church v. State (Fla.), 9 So. 2d 164; Mixon v. State (Fla.), 54 So. 2d 190. The right to immunity from unreasonable searches and seizures is personal and can be asserted only by those whose rights are violated.
The appellant was accorded a fair trial, the evidence of his guilt was conclusive and the record discloses no prejudicial error committed by the trial judge. The judgment and sentence are affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Mixon v. State, 54 So.2d 190 (Fla. 1951)
- Lou Church & J. D. Sawyer v. State, 151 Fla. 24 (Fla. 1942)