JOHNNIE LEE THOMAS, 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, either procedurally or on the merits.
Appellant was convicted of second-degree murder. He moved to suppress a confession, arguing it was involuntary and that the motion should have been he…
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
The appellant was found guilty of second degree murder after a trial before a jury. On this appeal, the points raised are directed to the court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress a confession. Appellant argues that the court erred in two particulars: (1) in failing to hear the motion to suppress prior to the trial, and (2) in failing to grant the motion.
The trial court heard evidence and denied appellant’s motion outside the hearing of the jury and prior to the admission of any testimony referring to the confession. Appellant contends that the court erred in failing to hear evidence on the motion prior to the trial. We need not determine, in this case, whether the rule directs a hearing prior to trial of testimony on a motion to suppress. But see Foster v. State, Fla.App.1971, 255 So.2d 533. In the instant case, appellant, by his own conduct, made impractical the hearing of the motion before the trial. The motion was filed one day before trial after the case had been set for trial for some time and witnesses had been subpoenaed. In addition, no hearing was requested on the motion until after the case had been called for trial. Under these circumstances, the appellant cannot complain that the cause was not continued in order to hear his motion. See Kemp v. State, Fla.App. 3rd 1973, 271 So.2d 777; Dickenson v. State, Fla.App. 1972, 261 So.2d 561.
Appellant’s second point urging error upon the merits of the motion to suppress presents a factual question. Appellant’s argument is in effect that the evidence before the court was such that the finding that the appellant was capable of making a voluntary statement is not supported by evidence that is free of reasonable doubt. Our review of the record convinces us that such is not the case.
Since we have failed to find error upon any of the matters assigned, the judgment and sentence are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bailey v. State, 295 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…l with the duty and responsibility of the movant to take affirmative action in calling the motion up for hearing prior to trial. We interpret the recent decisions in Foster v. State, Fla.App.1971, 255 So. 2d 533, and Thomas v. State, Fla.App. 1973, 272 So. 2d 217, as requiring the trial court under Rule 3.190(h) to “hold a hearing on a motion to suppress before the trial begins . ” and to “make its ruling on the motion before the trial begins, upon the basis of the evidence adduced at-the hearing on the moti…
-
DeJESUS v. State, 530 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…(Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Altchiler v. State, 442 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); State v. Perez, 438 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); A. McD. v. State, 422 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Snead v. State, 415 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Thomas v. State, 272 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Thomas v. State, 249 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Compare Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981).…
Authorities Cited
- Alton Glenn Dickenson v. State, 261 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Foster v. State, 255 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- Pollard v. Schwartz, 271 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- Brown v. The Life Ins. Co. OF Va., 271 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)