OTIS PIERCE REYNOLDS, 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.
The appellate court affirmed a conviction for breaking and entering with intent to commit petit larceny and petit larceny, holding that the trial court did not err in admitting the defendant's confession into evidence. The court found substantial competent evidence supported the trial court's ruling that the confession was voluntary and preceded by adequate Miranda warnings.
No, the trial court did not err. The ruling that the confession was voluntary and that adequate warnings were given was supported by substantial competent evidence.
“The question presented on appeal is whether error was committed in ruling that the defendant's confession was freely and voluntarily made and by admitting the confession in evidence.”
This quote states the central legal question addressed by the appellate court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny and grand larceny. He was tried without a jury and found guil…
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 Breaking And Entering With Intent To Commit Petit Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is by the defendant below, who was charged by information with the crime of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny, and grand larceny. Tried without a jury he was found and adjudged guilty of the lesser included offense of breaking and entering with intent to commit petit larceny (a felony under § 810.05 Fla.Stat., F.S.A.), and petit larceny. The sentence imposed was imprisonment for a period of eighteen months, with credit for the time served in jail prior to sentencing.
The question presented on appeal is whether error was committed in ruling that the defendant’s confession was freely and voluntarily made and by admitting the confession in evidence. The trial court’s ruling relating to the confession, on the issues as to the adequacy of the warnings given the defendant of his rights a la Miranda and of the voluntariness of his confession, which was made orally follow-lowing his arrest and later in writing, was supported by substantial competent evidence. Upon review of the testimony relating to those issues, in the light of the evidence as to the surrounding circumstances, we are impelled to conclude that the questioned ruling was in accordance with the manifest weight of the evidence. Resolution of such issues was for the trial court, whose province it was to judge the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence. Eizenman v. State, Fla.App.1961, 132 So.2d 763; Moore v. State, Fla.App.1967, 201 So.2d 475.
No reversible error having been made to appear, the judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Lovon Ponder v. State, 323 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…6 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. A resolution of the issues as to the voluntariness of a confession is for the trial court, whose province it is to judge the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence. Reynolds v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 222 So. 2d 246. The trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress comes to this court with a presumption of correctness and, in testing the accuracy of the trial court’s conclusions we should interpret the evidence and all reasonable inferences and deductions capab…
-
State v. Garcia, 431 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…to suppress, the trial court is the trier of both fact and law. Cameron v. State, 112 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959). The credibility of the witnesses and the weight of evidence are matters within the province of the trial judge, Reynolds v. State, 222 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969), whose determinations concerning questions of fact must be accepted by appellate courts if the record supports the findings. State v. Battleman, 374 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Consequently, the trial court’s resolution of conf…
-
State v. Graham, 240 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)…8. . 304 U.S. at 464, 58 S.Ct. at 1023. . 304 U.S. at 469, 58 S.Ct. 1025. . Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. Thompson, 1927, 93 Fla. 30, 111 So. 525. . The Florida Bar v. Rayman, Fla.1970, 238 So. 2d 594, 596. . In Reynolds v. State, Fla.App.1969, 222 So. 2d 246, our Third District Court of Appeal used the phrase, “substantial competent evidence,” and indicated that the trial court’s ruling would be overturned only if against the “manifest weight” of the evidence. In Dodd v. State, Fla.App.1970, 232 So. 2d…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Eizenman v. State, 132 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Moore v. State, 201 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)