DENNIS ROBERT HUGHES, 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 first-degree murder conviction, rejecting the defendant's arguments that he was prejudiced by wearing his own clothes (mistakenly identified as prison garb) and that his confession was inadmissible. The court found no merit in these claims.
The court held that the defendant was not prejudiced by his attire, as he was wearing his own clothes and rejected alternative clothing. The court also held that his confession was admissible, as he was properly warned of his rights, the confession was voluntary, and there was no unnecessary delay in his presentment.
[1] A defendant is not prejudiced by being brought before a jury in his own clothing, even if that clothing was worn when taken into custody and other clothing was lost or mi…
[2] A defendant's rejection of offered conventional clothing does not establish error if the record refutes the claim that the clothing did not fit.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Appellant argued the judgment should be reversed because he was brought before the trial jury in what he contends was prison garb. We find no merit therein.”
Establishes the defendant's argument regarding prison garb and the court's initial rejection of it.
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 convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. He appealed, arguing he was prejudiced by being presented to th…
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 Voluntariness Of Confession cases and more on FLexlaw
Dennis Robert Hughes was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, and this appeal by the defendant ensued.
Appellant argued the judgment should be reversed because he was brought before the trial jury in what he contends was prison garb. We find no merit therein. The record shows the clothes he wore at the trial were not prison garb, but were his own clothing consisting of a work shirt and blue jean trousers. It appeared that the clothing he was wearing when taken into custody had been lost or misplaced by the police prior to the time of trial. However, on the second day of the trial the defendant was offered more conventional clothing but rejected it. The appellant con*22tends he rejected the offered clothes because they did not fit. The record shows a refutation of that contention by the state with reference to the clothing- offered to the defendant.
No error was committed by denial of defendant’s motion to suppress his oral confession. The record shows the defendant was warned of his constitutional rights, and that the confession was voluntarily made. As to whether the defendant’s capacity to understand was impaired by either lack of sleep or intoxication when he was warned of his constitutional rights, and while he was being interrogated by the police, the record shows conflicting evidence. Based thereon the trial court, as was its province, was entitled to hold the defendant was not so impaired. There was no unnecessary delay in presenting the defendant before a committing magistrate. The arrest of the defendant occurred in the early hours of a certain day and his confession was made before noon on that day. See Young v. Wainwright, 5 Cir. 1964, 326 F.2d 255; Outten v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 197 So.2d 594 (quashed on other grounds, Fla., 206 So.2d 392); Stevens v. State, Fla.App.1971, 251 So.2d 565. We have examined a remaining point presented by the appellant and do not find therein ground for reversal of the judgment.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hughes v. State, 354 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…la.App.1972, 267 So. 2d 886.” % ¡‡: ¡j« sf: ü: The appellant had a full appeal upon his conviction. The issues presented by the 3.850 petition either were or could have been presented in his appeal in chief, which was affirmed in Hughes v. State, 272 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), cert. denied Fla., 282 So. 2d 877. Therefore, the order under review be and the same is hereby affirmed. Affirmed.…
-
Hughes v. State, 282 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 1973)…Certiorari denied. 272 So. 2d 21. CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. Barron Roofing Co., 206 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1968)
- State v. Outten, 206 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1968)
- Young v. Wainwright, 326 F.2d 255 (5th Cir. 1964)
- Stevens v. State, 251 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- Outten v. State, 197 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)