JOE LOUIS BALL, 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 involves an appeal by a defendant who was convicted of two separate robberies. The appellate court affirmed the judgments and sentences, finding the defendant's claims of illegal arrest, search, and delayed presentment before a magistrate to be without merit.
The appellate court held that the appellant's contentions were without merit. The search was incident to a legal arrest, no statements made by the appellant after arrest were used against him, and there was no showing of prejudice from the delay in presentment before a magistrate.
“The records submitted to this court did not include a transcript of the trial proceedings. This court, upon its own motion, directed that the testimony in the trial be transcribed and certified to this court.”
This quote highlights a procedural step taken by the appellate court to ensure a complete record for review.
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 two robberies, pleaded not guilty to the first and guilty to the second. He was represented by counsel throughout the p…
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 Sentencing Within Statutory Limits cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by the defendant in proper person from two judgments and sentences pursuant thereto. The appellant was charged by information with two separate robberies. The trial in the first cause (case number 65-7939) was upon a not-guilty plea and was before the judge without a jury. The appellant pleaded guilty to the second charge (case number 65-7992). He was adjudicated guilty and sentenced. Appellant was represented by the public defender at all critical stages of the proceedings.
The appellant filed assignments claiming error as follows: (1) the refusal of the trial court to suppress the evidence seized at the time of the allegedly illegal arrest and search; (2) interrogation by police officers prior to the appointment of counsel; (3) the failure to take the appellant before a magistrate without unnecessary delay (a period of 14 days). The records submitted to this court did not include a transcript of the trial proceedings. This court, upon its own motion, directed that the testimony in the trial be transcribed and certified to this court. This was done at the expense of the State.
The record now before this court reveals that appellant’s contentions are entirely without merit. The search was incident to a legal arrest. See Casso v. State, *57Fla. App.1966, 182 So.2d 252; Gibson v. State, Fla.App.1965, 180 So.2d 685. The record of the trial reveals that no statement made by the appellant subsequent to his -arrest and prior to the trial was entered in evidence against him. He pleaded guilty in the second case only after the adjudication in the first. There is no showing that appellant was in any way prejudiced by •the failure to take him before a magistrate. See Milton v. Cochran, Fla.1962, 147 So.2d 137; Montgomery v. State, Fla.1965, 176 So.2d 331; Gore v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So.2d 37.
The sentences in each case are within the scope of the punishment prescribed by •statute. Accordingly, the judgment and •sentence in each case are hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 210 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…lm established by the above-mentioned cases, and that the defendants’ arrest for vagrancy was lawful. Since the arrest was legal then the seizure made incident thereto was also legal and the items seized were admissible. Ball v. State, Fla.App.1966, 191 So. 2d 56. Affirmed. LILES, C. J., and PIERCE and HOB-SON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Montgomery v. State, 176 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 1965)
- Milton v. Cochran, 147 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 1962)
- Casso v. State, 182 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Gore v. State, 163 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- Gibson v. State, 180 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)