JOHNNY B. WILLIAMS, 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 court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress the confession or the motion to preclude witness testimony.
The defendant was found guilty of robbery. He appealed, arguing his confession should have been suppressed and a witness's testimony precluded.…
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 Discovery Depositions cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant, Johnny B. Williams, appeals from a judgment finding him guilty of robbery and the sentence thereupon. The points presented urge error upon the court’s denial of appellant’s motion to suppress his confession and appellant’s motion to preclude a witness’s testimony upon the ground that the witness did not appear for a deposition.
No error is demonstrated under the point directed to the confession. Appellant urges that the court incorrectly found that he did not request an attorney. However there is in the record clear evidence that the appellant after being fully advised expressed a willingness to answer any questions propounded without the presence of an attorney. The evidence shows that the waiver was voluntarily and expressly made. See Solino v. United States, 387 F.2d 354 (5th Cir. 1968).
Appellant’s second point fails to present error because it affirmatively appears that the appellant had full knowledge long prior to the trial that the subpoena directing the witness to appear for discovery was not served. There is no showing that the prosecution was in any way remiss in appellant’s failure to obtain service of the subpoena. A defendant may not complain of a failure to obtain service of a subpoena when he himself is responsible or fails to make a reasonable effort to correct a mistake. Cf. Gagnon v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 337; Gmaz v. King, District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, 238 So.2d 511, opinion filed August 19, 1970.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lewis v. State, 298 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…ject notice to be defective and the defendant now is precluded from complaining of failure to obtain service of a subpoena when he himself is responsible or fails to make a reasonable effort to correct a mistake. See Williams v. State, Fla.App.1970, 239 So. 2d 648. In addition, upon the victim’s failure to respond to the notice, the records reflect that defense counsel did not bring this matter to the trial court’s attention until he made his motion for continuance approximately 5 minutes before the trial was…
Authorities Cited
- Adler v. Copa Corp., 212 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Gmaz v. King, 238 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)
- Solino v. United States, 387 F.2d 354 (5th Cir. 1968)