RALPH N. MILLS, APPELLANT,
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.
The appellate court affirmed a conviction for breaking and entering, finding no reversible error in the denial of a motion to suppress palm prints or the admission of testimony about events subsequent to the offense.
No, the trial judge did not commit reversible error in denying the motion to suppress the palm prints, nor was it reversible error to admit the testimony about subsequent events.
“The appellant seeks reversal of a conviction of unlawfully breaking and entering" a dwelling house without a dangerous-weapon with intent to commit a felony, to wit: robbery and robbery, for which he-was sentenced to a term of fifteen years in-, the State Penitentiary.”
This quote establishes the nature of the conviction and the sentence being appealed.
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 convicted of breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit robbery and robbery. He was sentenced to fifteen years in …
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 Intent To Commit A Felony cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant seeks reversal of a conviction of unlawfully breaking and entering" a dwelling house without a dangerous-weapon with intent to commit a felony, to wit: robbery and robbery, for which he-was sentenced to a term of fifteen years in-, the State Penitentiary.
Appellant contends that he is entitled to a reversal on two grounds: (1) the trial judge committed reversible error in denying his motion to suppress his palm prints, as evidence; (2) it was reversible error to-admit the testimony relating to events occurring subsequent to the date of the al*119leged offense for which the appellant was tried.
We have carefully considered these contentions in the light of the briefs and the record on appeal and have found no reversible error. Therefore, the judgment and sentence are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mills v. State, 183 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1966)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 176 So. 2d 118.…