ALBERT MELVIN COLLIE, 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.
Defendant's conviction for possession of narcotics and narcotic implements was affirmed; the court rejected challenges to the denial of a speedy trial motion, the validity of the search warrant, the striking of a witness's testimony, and the sufficiency of evidence.
The conviction for possession of narcotics and narcotic implements was properly sustained where the search warrant was valid, the trial was timely, and the evidence was sufficient.
[1] A timely trial that is continued at the defendant's motion and followed by trial within a reasonable time does not violate the defendant's right to speedy trial.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant was convicted of possession of narcotics and possession of narcotic implements. A search warrant was executed based on information from a pa…
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 Search Warrant Validity cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is by the defendant below from conviction of the crimes of possession of narcotics and possession of narcotic implements for which he was placed on probation. Reversal is sought upon several contentions of error. We find lack of merit therein, and affirm the judgment.
Denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss for want of speedy trial was proper. A timely trial, as originally scheduled, was continued on motion of the defendant, following which trial was had within a reasonable time. See State ex rel. Butler v. Cullen, Fla. 1971, 253 So.2d 861, 863. The search and seizure of evidence under the search warrant was correctly upheld. The search warrant involved was valid. It was predicated on information given by a party who had taken the weapon from the police and then sold it to the defendant. See Wooten v. United States, 5 Cir. 1967, 380 F.2d 230, 232. Seizure of the drugs and the drug implements revealed upon the search was proper. Ludwig v. State, Fla. App.1968, 215 So.2d 898, 900. The striking of the testimony of the witness Alexis Collie did not constitute error. The witness, a heroin user, was observed by the court to be under the influence of the drug. No objection to that ruling was made at trial on behalf of the defendant, and defendant’s counsel stated: “She doesn’t even know where she is.” Moreover, the testimony stricken was cumulative evidence. Upon examination of the record we reject as unsound the appellant’s argument that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McARTHUR v. State, 303 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…waived when the defendant or his attorney requests a continuance. See State ex rel. Butler v. Cullen, Fla.1971, 253 So. 2d 861; Atkins v. State, Fla.App.1972, 265 So. 2d 72; Llano v. State, Fla.App.1972, 271 So. 2d 34; Collie v. State, Fla.App.1972, 267 So. 2d 382. We cannot accept the appellant’s argument that because the continuance was obtained without his knowledge, consent or approval, it would not operate as an effective waiver. The acts of an attorney “ . . . will be binding on the client even though…
Authorities Cited
- State of Fla. ex rel. Isaac Don Butler & Gerald Nickles v. Honorable Ralph O. Cullen, 253 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 1971)
- Bernie Ludwig v. State, 215 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Stewart v. State, 215 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)
- Wooten v. United States, 380 F.2d 230 (5th Cir. 1967)