Darrigo v. State
| Decision Date | 20 January 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 70--123,70--123 |
| Parties | Carmelo DARRIGO, a/k/a Charles Darrigo, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Louis de la Parte, Jr., Tampa, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and John A. Zebedee, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
Appellant Carmelo Darrigo, also known as Charles Darrigo, brings to this Court his appeal from the judgment and sentence entered by the Criminal Court of Record for Hillsborough County pursuant to a jury trial and conviction of Darrigo upon information charging him with lottery law violations.
On July 23, 1969, information was filed in said Court charging Darrigo in two counts. Count 1 charged him with unlawfully aiding and assisting in the setting up, promoting or conducting of a lottery, known as Bolita, Cuba and/or Bond. Count II charged him with having in his possession a certain wheel, implement or device, being a part of the paraphernalia for conducting the aforesaid lottery.
Darrigo filed motion to dismiss the information, which was denied. He filed motion for statement of particulars, which was granted in part and denied in part. He filed motion for production of statements or confessions, which was granted. On trial before a jury Darrigo was convicted on both counts. Upon denial of motion for new trial Darrigo was adjudged guilty as charged and was sentenced to a term in the State Prison on the first count, with sentence being deferred on the second count.
Darrigo has appealed to this Court and argues four points for reversal, viz.: (1) sufficiency of the evidence; (2) introduction of statements or admissions of Darrigo without sufficient proof of the corpus delicti; (3) introduction of the admissions or statements after the Court had previously ordered the State to furnish copies thereof to defense counsel, which the State had not done; (4) seizure of certain articles after search of defendant, without production of the alleged search warrant. We hold against Darrigo on all four items but will briefly discuss them seriatim.
(1) Sufficiency of the Evidence.
The evidence was amply sufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment. There was a significant piece of documentary evidence in the form of a sheet of paper, approximately 8 1/2 inches by 5 inches, containing three long rows of figures, opposite which in many instances were names or initials. This was obviously a lottery sales slip, and was so identified and designated by expert sworn testimony. When he was arrested a large quantity of $1.00 bills was on his person. Prior to his arrest while he was under surveillance he would make fast trips to various business establishments from his car and back to his car again.
Before his arrest the officers had procured a search warrant for search of his person and when the officers first approached him on a Tampa Street and while the search warrant was being read to him he removed his wallet from his left rear pocket, tossed it behind him where it hit a vehicle, thence landing on the ground between him and the officer. A white slip of paper had partially slipped out of the wallet, and the officer put his foot on it. He continued reading the warrant to Darrigo, whereupon Darrigo made a 'spontaneous utterance': . Then, referring to the wallet and slip of paper under the officer's foot he said in effect: 'I shouldn't have done that, that was the worst thing I could have done'. The slip of paper was the lottery sales slip before referred to. While riding with the officers to the jail Darrigo gratuitously stated that he was 'trying to make a living', that he 'was not selling dope', and 'they should legalize bolita'. He also told the officers that he realized the officers 'had a job to do'.
The foregoing is abundantly sufficient to sustain the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Porter v. State
...DCA 1974); Koedatich v. State, 263 So.2d 631 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Dickenson v. State, 261 So.2d 561 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Darrigo v. State, 243 So.2d 171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971); Davis v. State, 226 So.2d 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969); Simpson v. State, 211 So.2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); Tennant v. State, ......
-
State v. Osvath
...631 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. dismissed, 268 So.2d 533 (Fla.1972); Dickenson v. State, 261 So.2d 561 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Darrigo v. State, 243 So.2d 171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971); Davis v. State, 226 So.2d 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969); Blatch v. State, 216 So.2d 261, 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), cert. denied, 225......
-
Williams v. State
...631 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. dismissed, 268 So.2d 533 (Fla.1972); Dickenson v. State, 261 So.2d 561 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Darrigo v. State, 243 So.2d 171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971); Davis v. State, 226 So.2d 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969); Blatch v. State, 216 So.2d 261, 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), cert. denied, 225......
-
State v. Latimore, 73--440
...to procure or elicit evidence are examples of work product to which accused is not entitled ordinarily. See also Darrigo v. State, Fla.App.1971, 243 So.2d 171. Third, CrPR 3.220(a)(1)(ii) 3 itself makes it clear that the word 'statement' as used in the rule means a written statement signed ......