STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
RAYMOND THOMPSON, 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.
A defendant cannot relitigate issues previously decided on appeal, even in a new trial.
The defendant's prior conviction was reversed, but the appellate court had previously found the search warrant valid. During the new trial, the defend…
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
LETTS, Judge.
The State takes this appeal pursuant to Chapter 924.071 Fla.Stat. (1975), from an order suppressing evidence by reason of a defective search warrant. We reverse.
Having once successfully appealed a criminal conviction, a defendant is not entitled, during a new trial, to again raise matters previously expressly passed upon and found to be without merit by the appellate court.
Appellant was originally convicted of possession of both cocaine and marijuana and based his first appeal to this court on several grounds. In reversing the convictions, and ordering a new trial, Judge Owen said:
“Of the several points he urges as error on appeal, WE FIND MERIT IN ONLY ONE, that relating to improper and prejudicial remarks made by the prosecutor in his closing argument to the jury.” (Emphasis supplied). Thompson v. State, 318 So. 2d 549, 550 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).
One of the points raised in that appeal was that:
“THE COURT ERRED BY HOLDING THE SEARCH WARRANT TO BE VALID AND IN ALLOWING INTO EVIDENCE ITEMS SEIZED FROM A PREMISE NOT DESCRIBED IN THE WARRANT.”
Under the heading of the above quoted point on appeal, the appellant argued, in particular, that the wording of the warrant was insufficient to permit a search of the curtilage. This is exactly the same argument which he successfully raised again during the new trial. In our opinion, by finding that only one point on appeal had merit, Judge Owen affirmatively rejected the argument that this warrant was invalid. This being so, the question of its validity became the law of the case. Accordingly, it was error for the trial judge, during the pendency of the new proceedings, to grant a motion to suppress the evidence seized, because of the insufficiency of the very same warrant.
REVERSED AND REMANDED IN ACCORDANCE HEREWITH.
ALDERMAN, C. J., and MOORE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Rollins, 386 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…ecause this court adjudicated the propriety of the denial of the motion to discharge, the opinion of this court must be treated as the law of the case on the speedy trial issue.1 Haddock v. State, 141 Fla. 132, 192 So. 802 (1940); State v. Thompson, 357 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); and State v. Biesendorfer, 244 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). An affirmance predicated upon the presumption of correctness afforded a judgment of the trial court is no less a disposition of the cause because no record was prese…
-
Palm Beach Cnty. v. Town OF Palm Beach, 507 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…ied in the appellate decisions, were nevertheless necessarily involved in those decisions and thus must be regarded as the “law of the case” herein. Florida Appellate Practice (The Florida Bar, Continuing Legal Education) § 15.22; State v. Thompson, 357 So. 2d 428 (Fla.4th DCA 1978). Moreover, this question appears to be governed by the following holding of the District Court herein: “Once it has been judicially determined that a service or program is of no real and substantial benefit to the municipalities…
Authorities Cited
- Thompson v. State, 318 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)