121 So.2d 192 (Fla.App. 2 Dist. 1960), 1402, Di Bona v. State
|Citation:||121 So.2d 192|
|Party Name:||Guido DI BONA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.|
|Case Date:||June 10, 1960|
|Court:||Florida Court of Appeals, Second District|
Ray Sandstrom, Sandstrom & Hodge, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., Joseph Nesbitt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
ALLEN, Chief Judge.
The appellant was charged by information with knowingly unlawfully receiving or unlawfully concealing a stolen white mink coat the value of which was in excess of $100. The appellant was found guilty by a jury and judgment and sentence was entered thereon by the court.
During an investigation of a fur theft by the Fort Lauderdale police and the Broward County sheriff's office, it was discovered that appellant was involved in the selling or disposing of these furs. At approximately 2:00 a. m. on December 30, 1958, the appellant was asked to come to police headquarters. It was disclosed that during the preceding afternoon several furs and numerous rings were found and taken from the business establishment of a Mr. Baines known as Porky's Hideaway by a deputy sheriff of Broward County. At approximately midnight on the same day, two of these furs were identified by a Mr. Chohany as being furs which had been 'stolen' from his place of employment on May 15, 1958. Immediately thereafter an arrest order was issued for appellant and Mr. Baines. Baines was placed under arrest at 1:00 a. m. Baines then apparently confessed to aiding in the disposition of stolen property and also implicated appellant in the offense When appellant was brought in to the police station and confronted with Baines the appellant purportedly made an oral confession after being warned of his constitution rights. This confession was reduced to writing by his interrogators and the appellant signed it after he had been permitted to call his attorney.
The appellant now contends that since there was no evidence implicating him at the time the arrest order was issued, and since he was arrested without a warrant, he was therefore entitled to a preliminary hearing. The record discloses that although appellant was 'asked' to come to police headquarters, after Baines made his statement, appellant was retained or, in other words, was not free to leave, and subsequently was actually placed under arrest.
The appellant contends that a preliminary examination, pursuant to section 901.23, F.S.A., is an indispensable prerequisite to a criminal prosecution in which a defendant is taken into custody without a warrant. A preliminary hearing is in the nature of an inquiry with the purpose being to determine if probable cause exists to justify holding the accused for trial. Davis v. State, Fla.1953, 65 So.2d 307. It likewise is the purpose of section 901.23 to require...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP