ROY LEE BAKER, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1968-05-28
No. 67-451
Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.
211 So. 2d 59 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1968) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The only point preserved for review on this appeal is the question of the “voluntariness” of a statement given by the appellant.

From the record, it appears that counsel for the appellant [defendant in the trial court] conceded that the statement was given voluntarily. Therefore, we find the point not to be well taken on this appeal. Compare: Morgan v. State, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 60; State v. Jones, Fla.1967, 204 So.2d 515; Colebrook v. State, Fla.App.1968, 205 So.2d 675; Grace v. State, Fla.App.1968, 206 So.2d 225; Harris v. State, Fla.App.1968, 208 So.2d 108; DeRiggi v. State, Fla.App.1968, 209 So.2d 714 [opinion filed April 30, 1968],

Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Britt v. State, 211 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
    …PER CURIAM. Affirmed on the authority of Baker v. State, Fla.App.1968, 211 So. 2d 59 (opinion filed this date).…
  • Escobedo v. State, 561 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
    …dentical contention may not now be resurrected as a basis for reversal only after the jury has returned an unwelcome verdict. See McCook v. Caruthers, 87 Fla. 238, 99 So. 559 (1924); Saxon v. Chacon, 539 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Baker v. State, 211 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); 3 Fla.Jur.2d Appellate Review § 292 (1978) (“A party to an appeal may lose his right to attack error by agreeing or consenting to the ruling or other procedure to which he objects.”). The other claim of error in the admission of…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw