LOVON PONDER, 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.
Lovon Ponder appeals his conviction and 20-year sentence for robbery, challenging whether the state proved the requisite intent to aid and abet the crime and whether his alleged confession was properly admitted. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, finding sufficient evidence beyond the confession to support the jury's verdict.
The trial court did not err in denying either motion. Sufficient evidence other than the confession established Ponder's intent to aid and abet the robbery, and the trial court properly found Ponder was advised of his Miranda rights and made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right against self-incrimination and right to counsel.
[1] A trial court's resolution of the voluntariness of a confession is a determination of witness credibility and evidence weight, subject to a presumption of correctness on…
[2] The admissibility of an oral confession, rather than a written or recorded one, goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“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.”
Establishes the deferential standard of review applied to trial court determinations regarding confession voluntariness.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn October 25, 1974, Ponder visited a watchmaker's shop to inquire about a repair. Shortly after he left, four black men robbed the shop at gunpoint, …
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 Right To Counsel During Interrogation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Lovon Ponder, defendant in the trial court, appeals his judgment of conviction and sentence to 20 years in the state penitentiary following a jury trial on the charge of robbery.
The pertinent facts are that on October 25, 1974, Ponder entered the shop of watchmaker Jerome Murrary to inquire about having a watch movement placed inside a locket. Shortly after he left, four black men entered the shop, pointed a gun at Murrary, advised him that it was a holdup, and proceeded to take watches, rings and cash from the shop. Police officers in the neighborhood heard a burglar alarm and began to follow a moving car with four black men inside. When the car came to a stop, the four black men were apprehended. Ponder, the defendant, was the driver of the car. The missing items of jewelry and cash were found in the car. One of the police officers testified at trial that Ponder confessed to the robbery during questioning at the police station. Ponder denied confessing and claimed, in effect, that the robbers jumped in and commandeered his car at gunpoint.
The jury found Ponder guilty of robbery. The trial judge adjudged him guilty and sentenced him to 20 years in the state penitentiary. Ponder raises two points on appeal.
First, that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal in that the State failed to prove the requisite element of intent to aid, abet or assist in the perpetration of the robbery.
Second, that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress statements allegedly made to a police officer during a custodial interrogation, in that the State failed to sustain its burden of proving that the defendant made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right against self incrimination and his right to have counsel present during questioning as guaranteed by the Constitution.
From the record, it appears that Ponder was advised of his constitutional rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 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 capable of being drawn therefrom in a light most favorable to sustain these conclusions. Rodriquez v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 189 So. 2d 656, 660. The fact that the confession was not written or recorded but was oral goes only to the weight to be given to it, first by the trial judge in determining its voluntariness and then by the jury in determining its evidentiary weight. Ashley v. State, Fla. 1972, 265 So. 2d 685, 690.
The record contains other evidence in addition to the confession which is competent to establish Ponder’s intent. This court will not substitute its judgment of such matters for that of the jury nor pit its judgment against that of the jury in the determination of factual issues presented at trial. Jefferson v State, Fla.App. 1974, 298 So. 2d 465.
For the reasons above stated, the trial court is affirmed in all respects.
Affirmed
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Jester v. State, 339 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…acy of the trial court’s conclusions, the appellate court should interpret the evidence and all reasonable inferences and deductions capable of being drawn therefrom in a light most favorable to sustain the trial court’s conclusion. Ponder v. State, 323 So. 2d 296, 297 (Fla.3rd DCA 1975); Wigfall v. State, 323 So. 2d 587 (Fla.3rd DCA 1975). The record reflects that on the day in question, a City of Miami police officer encountered a lawfully parked automobile for the reason that it was a 1973 vehicle with a…
-
State v. Brown, 592 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…d 114 (Fla.1985); State v. Garcia, 431 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Favaloro, 424 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); State v. Melendez, 392 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); State v. Battleman, 374 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Ponder v. State, 323 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); State v. Thomas, 212 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968); Cameron v. State, 112 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959); see also Stone v. State, 378 So. 2d 765 (Fla.1979), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 986, 101 S.Ct. 407, 66 L.Ed.2d 250 (1980). Her…
-
Collier v. State, 353 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…lution of the issue of the voluntariness of a confession is for the trial judge whose province it is to pass upon the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence. Reynolds v. State, 222 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); Ponder v. State, 323 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Further, the trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress comes to the appellate court with a presumption of correctness and in testing the accuracy of the trial court’s conclusions, this court should interpret the evidence and a…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Ashley v. State, 265 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 1972)
- Onelio Garcia Rodriquez v. State, 189 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Jefferson v. State, 298 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Reynolds v. State, 222 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)