S. T. PATRICK, 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.
S. T. Patrick appeals his conviction for larceny of an automobile, raising claims that he was inadequately advised of his right to counsel, denied the right to subpoena witnesses, and prejudiced by the absence of a preliminary hearing. The Florida appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding that Patrick was properly advised of his constitutional rights and knowingly declined counsel.
Patrick was duly advised of his constitutional rights and by his actions declined his right to counsel. No error occurred regarding subpoena of witnesses because Patrick never requested the trial court or State attorney to subpoena witnesses. The absence of a preliminary hearing, even if it occurred, would not constitute reversible error because preliminary hearings are not a prerequisite to criminal prosecution.
“I advised him that anything that he said might be held against him, that he had the right to an attorney present at the time of the questioning or the State would furnish him with an attorney if he didn't have the money.”
The arresting officer's testimony establishing that Patrick received full Miranda-type warnings about his constitutional rights.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePatrick was arrested in possession of a stolen automobile. The arresting officer testified that he advised Patrick of his constitutional rights, inclu…
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 Right To Subpoena Witnesses cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant appeals from a judgment of conviction of larceny of an automobile, and sentence thereon. He has, at his own request, conducted these proceedings in pro-pria persona. Compare: Swarthout v. State, Fla.App.1964, 165 So.2d 773; Cook v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 793.
A review of the appellant’s brief indicates that he raises the following issues: That he was not adequately advised of his constitutional right to counsel. That he was denied the right to subpoena witnesses. That he was prejudiced by the failure to have a preliminary hearing.
*63As to the first issue, the arresting officer testified as follows:
“Q. Did you advise him specifically of any of his constitutional rights?
“A. Yes, sir, I 'did.
“Q. What did you advise him?
“A. I advised him that anything that he said might be held against him, that he had the right to an attorney present at the time of the questioning or the State would furnish him with an attorney if he didn’t have the money.
“Q. What did he say in regards to your advising him of his rights ?
“A. He said that he didn’t need a lawyer. He said that he had bought the car.”
JjC 5JÍ
Thereafter, the officer testified that the appellant gave conflicting statements as to where he obtained the automobile which was in his possession. The appellant took the stand in his own defense, but did not deny the testimony given by the arresting officer in regard to the advice he received in reference to his constitutional rights, but contended that he “bought” the stolen automobile. Neither did he deny that he told the arresting officer that he did not need a lawyer. We find that the appellant was duly advised of his constitutional rights and, by his actions, declined his right to counsel. Brisbon v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 201 So.2d 832.
The record fails to demonstrate that the appellant ever requested the trial court or the State attorney’s office to subpoena witnesses on his behalf. Therefore, no error is found in this regard. No opportunity was presented to the trial court to comply with what appears to be a belated thought by the appellant. Shea v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 767; Silver v. State, Fla. 1966, 188 So.2d 300.
The record fails to indicate whether or not the appellant was granted a preliminary hearing, but even if he did not have one this would not be reversible error. The holding of a preliminary hearing is not a prerequisite to a criminal prosecution. Baugus v. State, Fla.1962, 141 So.2d 264; Hoffman v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 169 So.2d 38.
Therefore, following a review of the record on appeal and briefs of the respective parties, the judgment of conviction and sentence here under, review is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hill v. State, 223 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)…estified in his own behalf, and under oath admitted everything in his statement was true and that it was voluntarily given. So there is no merit in Hill’s contention here. Other cases are in accord with this holding: Patrick v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So. 2d 62; Colebrook v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 205 So. 2d 675; Solino v. United States, 5 Cir. 1968, 387 F. 2d 354; Clark v. State, Fla.App.1968, 207 So. 2d 481; Anderson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 207 So. 2d 518; and Brisbon v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 201 So. 2d 8…
-
State v. Levine, 258 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…however, that it should be emphasized that there is a settled rule of law making it mandatory that the defendant subpoena the witnesses he expects to rely upon for his defense. This rule has been clearly set forth in Patrick v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So. 2d 62. See also Parrish v. State, Fla.App.1963, 151 So. 2d 68. We recognize the rule as stated and simply hold that there is not sufficient record before us to indicate that the trial judge erred in finding that this case constituted an exception to the g…
-
Bocanegra v. State, 335 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…pp.1975, 323 So. 2d 297; Borders v. State, Fla.App.1975, 312 So. 2d 247; Williams v. State, Fla.App. 1975, 307 So. 2d 877; Starling v. State, Fla.App.1972, 263 So. 2d 645; Grech v. State, Fla.App.1971, 243 So. 2d 216; Patrick v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So. 2d 62; Pessolano v. State, Fla.App.1964, 166 So. 2d 706; and Rules 3.150, 3.151, and 3.152 Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 33 F.S.A.…
Authorities Cited
- Baugus v. State, 141 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 1962)
- Silver v. State, 188 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 1966)
- Shea v. State, 167 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Swarthout v. State, 165 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Brisbon v. State, 201 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Asa Cook v. State, 167 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- Acceptance Corp. OF Fla. v. Stewart, 169 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- Hoffman v. State, 169 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)