Soto v. State, s. 75--466
| Decision Date | 20 January 1976 |
| Docket Number | 75--467 and 75--468,Nos. 75--466,s. 75--466 |
| Citation | 325 So.2d 414 |
| Parties | Anibal and Rebeca SOTO et al., Appellants, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Carling Stedman, Max Kogen, Ronald Fath, Miami, for appellants.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., J. Robert Olian, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Charles Hauck, Legal Intern, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, C.J., and HENDRY and NATHAN, JJ.
Appellants bring these consolidated appeals from the trial court's adjudication of their guilt and sentencing for aiding or assisting in conducting a lottery.
Appellants were tried nonjury on January 27 and February 1, 1975, for aiding or assisting in conducting a lottery. On March 25, 1975, they were adjudicated guilty and sentenced. From these judgments and sentences, appellants bring these consolidated appeals.
Appellants contend on appeal that the trial court erred in issuing a warrant to search the premises involving in these cases because probable cause did not exist for its issuance, thereby depriving appellants of their constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; and that the trial court erred in failing to grant their motions for judgment of acquittal because, as a matter of law, the evidence was insufficient to sustain their convictions. Additionally, appellants Anibal and Rebeca Soto contend that the fines imposed by their sentences are illegal and should be vacated.
Appellee contends that the trial court did not err in denying appellants' motions to quash and suppress evidence obtained pursuant to the search warrant, and that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions of appellants.
It is a well settled principle that no judgment or sentence in a criminal case will be reversed unless the appellate court after an examination of the record is of the opinion that error was committed which injuriously affected substantial rights of the appellant. Blackman v. State, Fla.App.1973, 276 So.2d 99; Matera v. State, Fla.App.1969, 218 So.2d 180, cert. den. Galtieri v. Florida, 396 U.S. 955, 90 S.Ct. 424, 24 L.Ed.2d 420; Sylvia v. State, Fla.App.1968, 210 So.2d 286, cert. den. 393 U.S. 981, 89 S.Ct. 452, 21 L.Ed.2d 442; § 924.33 Fla.Stat., F.S.A.; and see 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals § 358.
We have considered the record, all points in the briefs and arguments of counsel in the light of the controlling principles of law, and have concluded that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sotto v. Wainwright
...and sentenced to three years in prison. After Florida's Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions, Soto v. State, 325 So.2d 414 (Dist.Ct.App., 1976), Sotto and Amor petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for writs of certiorari; the court denied the petition on July 30, 1976. So......
-
Powers v. State, 78-918
...substantial rights of appellant. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence appealed are affirmed. See, e. g., Soto v. State, 325 So.2d 414 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Blackman v. State, 279 So.2d 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Matera v. State, 218 So.2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); Sylvia v. State, 2......
-
Reno v. Baker
...On appeal, the convictions were affirmed by this court and certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court of Florida. Soto v. State, 325 So.2d 414 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. dismissed July 30, 1976, 336 So.2d 1184. The defendants then moved the trial court to mitigate the sentences and the trial......