DENNIS C. SHEA AND JOHN ROSCOE WADSWORTH, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE 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.
Defendants Shea and Wadsworth appealed their robbery convictions in Dade County, raising multiple constitutional and procedural challenges. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed their convictions, finding no merit to claims regarding illegal search and seizure, denial of preliminary hearing, prosecutorial misconduct, or insufficiency of evidence.
The court held that the search was legal as incidental to a valid arrest; a preliminary hearing is not a necessary step in criminal proceedings; the prosecutor's remarks were not prejudicial because defendants opened the door to them by introducing their own past history; and the trial judge properly exercised discretion in evaluating sufficiency of evidence issues.
“the record amply demonstrates that the search involved was made incidental to a valid arrest”
Establishes the court's rationale for rejecting the illegal search and seizure claim
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceShea and Wadsworth were convicted of robbery in the Criminal Court of Record in and for Dade County. The defendants were subjected to a police line-up…
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 And Seizure cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendants appeal from their conviction of the crime of robbery in the Criminal Court of Record in and for Dade County.
Appellants urge, on this appeal, several errors: (1) an illegal search and seizure resulting in illegally obtained evidence, (2) failure of the trial court to afford a preliminary hearing prior to arraignment, (3) failure of the trial court to grant a new trial based on alleged mistaken identifications of appellants during a police line-up and certain prejudicial remarks made by the prosecutor, (4) failure of the trial court to direct a verdict for insufficiency of evidence.
We must disagree with appellants’ initial contention because the record amply demonstrates that the search involved was made incidental to a valid arrest.1
There was no error committed by the trial court in failing to afford appellants a preliminary hearing, inasmuch as, a preliminary hearing is not a necessary step in criminal proceedings.2
Appellants’allegation in regard to the prejudicial remarks of the prosecutor are not well taken, in that, the record clearly indicates that appellants opened the-door to these remarks by going into their past history.
The remainder of appellants’ assignments of error deal with “sufficiency of the evidence” in regard to the trial court’s failure to direct verdicts or grant new trials. These are matters properly reserved for the discretion of the trial judge. No substantial error having been made to appear, his discretion will not be disturbed.3
Accordingly, the judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dodson v. State, 356 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…aking and entering. Appellant contends the allowance of such cross-examination, over objection, deprived the defendant of a fair trial. We cannot agree. No reversible error was thereby committed. Defendant’s attorney opened the door. Shea v. State, 167 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964); Martin v. United States, 404 F. 2d 640, 642-643 (10th Cir. 1968). By questions on direct examination of the defendant his attorney had created basis for an inference that there was one prior conviction for auto theft and that th…
-
Carmine Vincent Palmieri v. State, 198 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1967)…2d 264. It is not an indispensable prerequisite to the filing of an information, Di Bona v. State (Fla.App. 1960), 121 So. [*635] 2d 192, 193; Davis v. State, supra, and is not a necessary step in criminal proceedings. Shea v. State (Fla.App.1964), 167 So. 2d 796; Baugus v. State, supra. “A prosecution may be instituted and maintained regardless of whether such a hearing is or is not held, and regardless of whether probable cause to hold the accused for trial is or is not found.” Montgomery v. State (Fla.196…
-
Gillyard v. State, 175 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…v. State, Fla.1962, 141 So. 2d 264; Milton v. Cochran, Fla.1962, 147 So. 2d 137; Byers v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 163 So. 2d 57; Wooten v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So. 2d 305; Marti v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So. 2d 506; Shea v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So. 2d 796. For the reasons stated the order appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded [*800] for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Reversed and remanded.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Griffin v. State, 474 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 1985)
- Baugus v. State, 141 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 1962)
- Melton v. State, 75 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 1954)
- Jambs McCray v. State, 45 Fla. 80 (Fla. 1903)