VICTOR ORTIZ, 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.
Victor Ortiz was convicted of larceny of a truck after a bench trial and sentenced to 18 months in prison. On appeal, he challenged the sufficiency of evidence and the admissibility of his statement to the arresting officer, arguing the Miranda warnings were inadequate. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the officer's warnings substantially complied with Miranda and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction independent of Ortiz's statement.
The court held that the arresting officer's warnings, though not verbatim recitation of the Miranda formula, were adequate and fully informed the appellant of his constitutional rights. Additionally, the court held that sufficient evidence existed to sustain the conviction independent of the inculpating statement.
“Although Neely did not recite the Miranda formula verbatim, he did adequately and fully inform the appellant of his constitutional rights.”
Establishes that substantial compliance with Miranda, rather than verbatim recitation, satisfies constitutional requirements
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOrtiz was employed by Lebon Cleaners in Miami. In March 1967, a truck owned by Lebon was reported stolen. Shortly thereafter, Ortiz was found driving …
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 Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
Ortiz was adjudged guilty of larceny of a truck after a non-jury trial and was sentenced to 18 months in prison. He presents two points upon appeal. The first questions the sufficiency of the evidence and urges that the court erred in failing to grant his motion for a directed verdict made at the dose of the State’s case. The second urges that the court committed reversible error when it admitted into evidence appellant’s statement made to the arresting officer.
Appellant was employed by Lebon Cleaners in Miami. In March 1967 the owner of Lebon reported that one of his trucks had been stolen. Shortly after the report •ivas ’ made, the truck, with Ortiz driving, was involved in an accident in Bunnell, Florida, about 300 miles from Miami. Highway Patrol Trooper Neely arrested Ortiz. After Neely advised Ortiz of his constitutional rights as outlined in Miranda,1 Ortiz told Neely that he had taken the truck for the express purpose of driving to New York to see his wife. Neely’s account of Ortiz’s statement was admitted into evidence over the objection of defense counsel.
Ortiz argues that Neely did not meet Miranda standards in advising him of his constitutional rights, and that the inculpating statement should therefore not have been admitted into evidence. Although Neely did not recite the Miranda formula verbatim, he did adequately and fully inform the appellant of his constitutional rights.2 The warning was sufficient and the confession was properly admitted. See Biglow v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 205 So.2d 547.
The appellant also contends that without the inculpating statement there was not sufficient evidence upon which to base the judgment. This contention is without merit. The record contains evidence sufficient to sustain the conclusion of the trier of fact that the appellant was guilty of larceny of the truck even if the inculpating statement had been excluded. See Cone v. State, Fla.1953, 69 So.2d 175; Borghese v. State, Fla.App.1963, 158 So.2d 785.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Craig, 237 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 1970)…ime with a piece of pipe, him and his brother. “Q O.K. This is what we are interested in, the whole thing.” The state argues two cases as in conflict with the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal. These are Ortiz v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So. 2d 57, and Key v. State, Fla.App.1967, 194 So. 2d 664. Key is not even remotely in point. There post-conviction relief was sought from judgments founded on guilty pleas after “the trial judge patiently and meticulously explained to the defendant his righ…1 / 2
-
Herdzik v. State, 214 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…ive his privilege against self incrimination and his right to have counsel present. Therefore, we have concluded that the trial court ruled correctly in denying defendant’s motion to suppress the inculpatory statements. Ortiz v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So. 2d 57; Colebrook v. State, Fla.App.1968, 205 So. 2d 675; Biglow v. State, Fla.App.1968, 205 So. 2d 547. Appellant’s second and only other point has been considered and found to be without merit. We have carefully reviewed the entire record and considere…
-
Smith v. State, 217 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…stablished a prima facie case of larceny against the appellant and also proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed larceny. Therefore, the judgment of conviction must be affirmed. See Hodges v. State, above. Cf. Ortiz v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So. 2d 57. Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Cone v. State, 69 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1953)
- Benny John Borghese v. State, 158 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Biglow v. State, 205 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)