W. H. REYNOLDS, 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 appellate court affirmed a conviction for unlawful possession of moonshine whiskey, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments regarding the illegality of the search warrant and its service.
No, the search warrant and its service were not illegal. The grounds for reversal raised by the appellant have been previously addressed and resolved by prior appellate decisions.
“The grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant have been answered by prior decisions of the Supreme Court of Florida or other Appellate Courts and it is not necessary to write a lengthy opinion thereon, because the grounds for reversal of this case are answered and controlled by the cases of Johnson v. State, 157 Fla. 685, 27 So. 2d 276; North v. State, 159 Fla. 854, 32 So. 2d 915; Espinola v. State, Fla., 86 So. 2d 601, and Joyner v. City of Lakeland, Fla., 90 So. 2d 118.”
This quote explains why the court is not providing an extensive analysis, as the issues have been settled by prior case law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was charged with and convicted of unlawful possession of moonshine whiskey. He appealed, arguing that the search warrant used to find th…
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.
This is an appeal from the Provisional Criminal Court, Division B, Duval County, Florida, wherein the Appellant was charged with the unlawful possession of moonshine whiskey and upon trial in said Court was convicted of said offense.
The Appellant urges fifteen grounds for the reversal of said lower Court dealing in the main upon the illegality of the search warrant and irregularity of its service by the officers, which grounds were presented to the lower Court by Motion to Quash and Motion to Suppress the evidence. The same was duly and regularly heard by the Trial Court and denied. The cause proceeded to trial and the same questions were again presented and denied by the Trial Court. No new or unusual legal questions are involved in this appeal. The grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant have been answered by prior decisions of the Supreme Court of Florida or other Appellate Courts and it is not necessary to write a lengthy opinion thereon, because the grounds for reversal of this case are answered and controlled by the cases of Johnson v. State, 157 Fla. 685, 27 So.2d 276; North v. State, 159 Fla. 854, 32 So.2d 915; Espinola v. State, Fla., 86 So.2d 601, and Joyner v. City of Lakeland, Fla., 90 So.2d 118.
We have reviewed the complete record and testimony and find that there is substantial evidence to sustain the verdict of the jury. The assignments and grounds for reversal presented and argued by the Appellant are without merit, and for the reasons stated herein the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
WIGGINTON, Acting Chief Judge, and CARROLL, DONALD K., J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Johnson v. State, 157 Fla. 685 (Fla. 1946)
- Lennie Lee Joyner v. City OF Lakeland, 90 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 1956)
- North v. State, 159 Fla. 854 (Fla. 1947)