WILLIE GRAY DIXON, JR., 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.
Willie Gray Dixon appeals his conviction for narcotic law violation, challenging the sufficiency of the search warrant affidavit and the identification of the defendant at trial. The court affirmed the conviction, finding the search warrant was supported by probable cause and the evidence of identity was sufficient.
The court held that the allegations in the search warrant affidavit, together with the circumstances surrounding the information, were sufficient to establish probable cause that Dixon was using his home for illicit drug trafficking. The court also held that the evidence, including the identification of Dixon as the defendant, was ample to sustain a guilty verdict.
“the sum total of the allegations of the affidavit for a search warrant and the circumstances surrounding the information received by affiant, as recited in the affidavit, were sufficient to cause a prudent man of affiant's experience to believe that appellant was using his home as a base for illicit traffic in narcotic drugs”
Establishes the court's standard for evaluating probable cause in search warrant affidavits
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn June 11, 1964, officers with a search warrant entered Dixon's home in Tampa. A slight scuffle ensued as the officers entered, and Dixon was arreste…
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 Identification Of Defendant cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from an order, judgment and sentence in a non-jury trial finding appellant guilty of a charge by direct information for narcotic law violation.
On June 11, 1964, a deputy sheriff of Hillsborough County, accompanied by two detectives of the City of Tampa Police Department, went to the h.ome of appellant in Tampa, Florida. Answering the knock at the front door, appellant opened the door and was informed of the identity of the officers and that they had a search warrant to search his home. As the officers entered, according to the testimony of the deputy sheriff a “slight scuffle” ensued. “He seemed to want to try to prevent us from executing the warrant,” the deputy sheriff said.
The officer further testified that appellant was placed under arrest after which the warrant was read to him and the search proceeded. No contraband was found in the house, but a quantity of capsules and tablets, together with two hypodermic needles *682and hypodermic syringe were taken from the person of the appellant. The deputy sheriff testified that the appellant identified the capsules and tablets as containing dilau-did and cocaine. It was stipulated by counsel for the respective parties that if the chemist from the State Board of Health were present at the trial he would testify that the capsules and tablets taken from appellant contained dilaudid and cocaine.
On cross-examination the deputy sheriff testified that the arrest o,f appellant was for interfering with officers in the execution of the search warrant, but that no formal charge had been filed against appellant pursuant to such arrest.
Appellant poses two questions for review:
1) The affidavit for search warrant did not contain sufficient factual allegations to furnish probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant, and, consequently, the lower court erred in not granting appellant’s motion to quash and suppress any evidence obtained by the search.
2) The state failed to sufficiently identify the appellant at the trial and that the lower court should have granted appellant’s motion for directed verdict of Not Guilty.
We have carefully reviewed the record and find that the sum total of the allegations of the affidavit for a search warrant and the circumstances surrounding the information received by affiant, as recited in the affidavit, were sufficient to cause a prudent man of affiant’s experience to believe that appellant was using his home as a base for illicit traffic in narcotic drugs. Perez v. State, Fla., 81 So.2d 201.
The filing of a motion for directed verdict of Not Guilty admits all facts in evidence and every conclusion favorable to a conviction fairly and reasonably infera-ble therefrom. Victor v. State, 141 Fla. 508, 193 So. 762.
It is our view that the evidence, with all reasonable inferences fairly drawn therefrom, including the identification of the appellant as the defendant in the lower court, is ample to sustain a verdict of Guilty.
Finding no error the judgment, order and sentence appealed from is affirmed.
SHANNON, Acting C. J., and LILES, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pesce v. State, 288 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…ding the information received by the affiant, coupled with his personal observations, “were sufficient to cause a prudent man of affiant’s experience” to believe that defendant was using his home for illegal activities. Dixon v. State, Fla.App.1965, 180 So. 2d 681. The affidavit, in the case sub judice, is based on something more than mere conclusions or mere suspicions of both the informant and the affiant. Compare Aguilar v. Texas, 1964, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723. The rationale of Draper,…
-
Lou Ann Andreasen v. State, 439 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…d reasonably in-ferable therefrom. Victor v. State, 141 Fla. 508, 193 So. 762 (1939); Weldon v. State, 287 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), appeal dismissed, 298 So. 2d 419 (Fla.1974); Dancy v. State, 284 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Dixon v. State, 180 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965), cert. dismissed, 188 So. 2d 318 (Fla.), appeal dismissed, 188 So. 2d 810 (Fla.1966). The test to be applied in reviewing the denial of a motion for acquittal is whether the jury might reasonably conclude that the evidence, assumi…
-
Dixon v. State, 188 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 1966)…Appeal dismissed without opinion. 180 So. 2d 681.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Victor v. State, 141 Fla. 508 (Fla. 1939)
- Hobson Collier and Louise Collier v. City OF Homestead, 81 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 1955)