Battles v. State, 66--686

Decision Date12 March 1968
Docket NumberNo. 66--686,66--686
Citation208 So.2d 150
PartiesFelix BATTLES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Daniel A. Wick, Miami, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Arden M. Siegendorf and Arthur L. Rothenberg, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, C.J., and BARKDULL and HENDRY, JJ.

CHARLES CARROLL, Chief Judge.

On March 26, 1965, the appellant was adjudged guilty of robbery, and of assault with intent to commit a felony, to-wit: manslaughter. Concurrent ten-year sentences were imposed. No appeal was taken. On October 13, 1965, this appellant filed a motion in the trial court for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, in which it was contended that the public defender had refused to appeal from his conviction. The trial court treated the motion as one for new trial, and after an evidentiary hearing reserved ruling thereon. On February 21, 1966, a motion for new trial was filed on behalf of the defendant by a special public defender appointed by the court to represent him. This appeal is from an order of the trial court denying that motion.

The record of the trial discloses evidence was presented that the appellant, who will be referred to as the defendant, accosted the victim and demanded a dime; that the victim, not having a dime, offered to give him a dollar, and as directed threw the dollar on the ground; that the defendant picked it up 'and then he backed off and then throwed the pistol on me;' that as the victim broke and ran he was shot in the leg; that a police officer who was nearby heard the shot, and upon arriving on the scene saw the defendant with a gun in his hand; that the officer identified himself as such and directed the defendant to drop the gun; that the defendant then crouched beside a truck where he was out of sight in the darkness, at which time the officer heard a clank of metal, and when the officer moved around the truck and again saw the defendant the latter did not have the gun; that a prompt search for the gun revealed it underneath the truck; that before the victim was taken to the hospital, and while an officer was interrogating the victim, the defendant made a statement which the officer stated was 'spontaneous;' that the officer then testified, 'At this time he interjected himself into the conversation and stated that the victim had it in for him because he, the defendant, had worked over and beaten up the victim's brother at a nearby cabaret. He stated that the victim had been shot in a tussle over the gun'; that the foregoing statement was made...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • James v. State, 1480
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • May 13, 1969
    ...That Miranda v. Arizona does not apply to such a statement is clear from the language of that decision. See also Battles v. State, Fla.App.1968, 208 So.2d 150. Finally, it appears from the record that at no time did the defendant offer any objection at the trial to the introduction of the t......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT