EDWARD J. SHARRETTS, 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.
This case reviews the admissibility of a confession obtained during police interrogation after arrest but before a preliminary hearing. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the confession was admissible despite the lack of a preliminary hearing.
Yes, the confession was admissible because the appellant was properly informed of his rights and voluntarily waived his right to counsel before making the confession.
“It is not contended the confession was not made voluntarily, but that it was inadmissible because obtained by interrogation (on the day of arrest) while the defendant was held in custody without having been afforded a preliminary hearing.”
This quote outlines the specific grounds for the appeal regarding the confession's admissibility.
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 arrested and subsequently confessed to robbery after being identified in a lineup. He was informed of his right to counsel, includin…
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 Admissibility Of Confessions cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was informed against, tried and convicted of the crime of robbery. On his appeal he challenges the ruling of the trial court admitting his confession into evidence. It is not contended the confession was not made voluntarily, but that it was inadmissible because obtained by interrogation (on the day of arrest) while the defendant was held in custody without having been afforded a preliminary hearing. Prior to making the confession the defendant had been identified in a line-up. He was warned of his rights by an interrogating officer and advised he was entitled to counsel, including public defense counsel, and he affirmatively chose not to have counsel at that time. We hold on authority of Young v. State, Fla. 1962, 140 So.2d 97; Montgomery v. State, Fla.1965, 176 So.2d 331, that admission of the confession, in the circumstances shown in the record, was not error.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fritz v. Norflor Constr. Co., 386 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…and documents of Boyle Engineering, which are not in their possession or under their control, the lower court’s order departed from the essential requirements of law. In Re Dahl’s Estate, 125 So. 2d 332 (Fla.2d DCA 1960); Gay v. City of Gainesville, 186 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966); Ormond Beach First National Bank v. Montgomery Roofing Company, 189 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966), cert. denied 200 So. 2d 813 (Fla.1967). The order and subpoena should only require production of documents which the deponent ha…
-
Outten v. State, 197 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…State, Fla.1961, 132 So. 2d 329; Dawson v. State, Fla.1962, 139 So. 2d 408; Young v. State, Fla.1962, 140 So. 2d 97; Romanello v. State, Fla.App.1964, 160 So. 2d 529; Gore v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So. 2d 37; and Sharretts v. State, Fla.App.1966, 186 So. 2d 41. These cases all have one common denominator, namely, the violation by the arresting officer of the provisions of F.S. Section 901.23 F.S.A., which in substance requires that when an arresting officer takes one in custody without a warrant, he shall…
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Floyd T. Christian v. The Honorable John A. Rudd & the Honorable Ben C. Willis, 302 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)…etion of the Court and that the writ may be issued to correct the procedure of courts wherein they have not observed those requirements of law deemed to be essential to the administration of justice. In Gay v. City of Gainesville, Fla.App. 1st 1966, 186 So. 2d 41, we said: “ * * * A common law writ of certio-rari issues in the sound judicial discretion of the court, the function of which is to cause the entire record of an inferi- or court to be brought up in order that it may be determined from the face th…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Montgomery v. State, 176 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 1965)
- Young v. State, 140 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1962)