Coykendall v. State
| Decision Date | 20 January 1970 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 69--263,69--264,s. 69--263 |
| Citation | 230 So.2d 702 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | William Kenneth COYKENDALL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Hughlan Long, Public Defender, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Melvin Grossman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before PEARSON, C.J., and HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.
The appellant was convicted for the crimes of forgery, uttering a forged instrument, and petit larceny by unlawful use of a credit card. As his first point on appeal, he contends that error was committed when the trial court refused to grant his motion to suppress certain evidence seized under the following circumstances; during the afternoon of October 15, 1968, the appellant was lying on the grassy area adjacent to a public beach in Miami Beach. The area was posted with a 'keep off the grass' sign. The appellant was approached by Miami Beach Police Officer Griscom who initially asked the appellant for some identification. Officer Griscom testified that appellant Coykendall volunteered the information that he had just gotten off work that afternoon and, not having any residence of his own, was waiting on the grassy area for the return of his car, which he had loaned to a man. The appellant told Officer Griscom that he did not know the man's name or when he would be back with the automobile.
After inspecting the appellant's proffered identification, Officer Griscom was directed by the appellant to a white Chevrolet automobile which the appellant identified as his. Officer Griscom testified that he had taken special notice of that particular car before his initial conversation with the appellant because it bore a California license tag on the rear only. This was unusual in the police officer's opinion because he was aware that the State of California requires both front and rear license tags to be displayed. When the two parties approached the auto, Officer Griscom also noticed that there was no inspection sticker attached to the windshield of the car. Knowing that California, like Florida, requires such an inspection sticker, Officer Griscom stated to the appellant his suspicions that the automobile may have been stolen and thereupon informed him of his suspect rights.
After so informing the appellant, Officer Griscom was then shown an expired Oregon registration for the automobile, dated 1968, which showed ownership of the car in the name of a woman. The appellant then told the police officer that this woman had sold him the car, but upon request, the appellant was unable to show a bill of sale.
Officer Griscom also observed, through the window of the automobile, a large knife concealed in a scabbard lying between the edge of the seat and the metal strip at the bottom...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Marshall
...Supra; Taylor v. State (Tex.Cr.App., 1967), 421 S.W.2d 403, cert. den. 393 U.S. 916, 89 S.Ct. 241, 21 L.Ed.2d 201; Coykendall v. State (Fla.App., 1970), 230 So.2d 702, 703; People v. Mermuys, Supra.5 Absence of a driver's license: People v. Ceccone, Supra; Taylor v. State, Supra; People v. ......
-
Werley v. State
...and arrest the appellant. Walker v. State, Fla.App.1967, 196 So.2d 8; State v. Outten, Fla.1968, 206 So.2d 392; Coykendall v. State, Fla.App.1970,230 So.2d 702. The fact that he may or may not have violated her right of privacy by making an observation himself was merely cumulative to the p......
-
Santiago v. State, 74--1452
...Fla.1968, 206 So.2d 392; Russell v. State, Fla.App.1972, 266 So.2d 92; Salas v. State, Fla.App.1971, 246 So.2d 621; Coykendall v. State, Fla.App.1970, 230 So.2d 702. Next, we express the view that appellant's contention concerning denial of counsel is without Appellant relies on Escobedo v.......
-
Palladino v. State, 72--182
...felony conviction, this record will be transferred to the circuit court. Merrill v. State, Fla.App.1969, 225 So.2d 436; Coykendall v. State, Fla.App.1970, 230 So.2d 702; Maninger v. State, Fla.App.1971, 254 So.2d 862; Kanter v. State, Fla.App.1972, 265 So.2d 742 (opinion filed August 29, We......