KEYVUS LAVONN SMART, 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 addresses whether a defendant's right to counsel at a lineup applies retroactively. The court held that the right to counsel at a lineup, as established in United States v. Wade, applies prospectively and not retroactively.
No, the trial court did not err. The Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Wade, which established the right to counsel at a lineup, was held to apply prospectively and not retroactively.
“The contention presented on his appeal is that the court committed reversible error in denying his motion to strike the testimony of the victim, relating to identity of the defendant, because he was picked by the victim out of a line-up at which he was not advised of a right to have counsel present, and was without counsel.”
This quote states the appellant's main argument on appeal regarding the lineup identification.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was convicted of robbery and sentenced to five years imprisonment. During the trial, the court denied the appellant's motion to strike t…
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 Counsel At Lineup cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was informed against, tried before the court and found and adjudged guilty of robbery and sentenced to confinement for a period of five years. The contention presented on his appeal is that the court committed reversible error in denying his motion to strike the testimony of the victim, relating to identity of the defendant, because he was picked by the victim out of a line-up at which he was not advised of a right to have counsel present, and was without counsel.
The defendant relies on United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed. 2d 1149, which espoused the proposition he contends for. The Wade case was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 12, 1967, some five months after the trial in this case, which was held on January 19, 1967. The Supreme Court of the United States held that the Wade case operated prospectively and was not given retroactive application. Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199. See also Marden v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 638; Bradley v. State, Fla.App.1968, 206 So.2d 657, 660. Therefore, the challenged ruling of the trial court in this court in this case was not error.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1967)
- Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (U.S. 1967)
- Marden v. State, 203 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Bradley v. State, 206 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)