Dixon v. State
| Decision Date | 08 December 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 6086,6086 |
| Citation | 180 So.2d 681 |
| Parties | Willie Gray DIXON, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Peter J. T. Taylor, of Goldburg, Putney & Taylor, Tampa, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert G. Stokes, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.
This is an appeal from an order, judgment and sentence in non-jury trial finding appellant guilty of a charge by direct information for narcotic law violation.
On June 11, 1964, a deputy sheriff of Hillsborough County, accompanied by two detectives of the City of Tampa Police Department, went to the home of appellant in Tampa, Florida. Answering the knock at the front door, appellant opened the door and was informed of the identity of the officers and that they had a search warrant to search his home. As the oficers entered, according to the testimony of the deputy sheriff a 'slight scuffle' ensued. 'He seemed to want to try to prevent us from executing the warrant,' the deputy sheriff said.
The officer further testified that appellant was placed under arrest after which the warrant was read to him and the search porceeded. No contraband was found in the house, but a quantity of capsules and tablets, together with two hypodermic needles and hypodermic syringe were taken from the person of the appellant. The deputy sheriff testified that the appellant identified the capsules and talets as containing dilaudid and cocaine. It was stipulated by counsel for the respective parties that if the chemist from the State Board of Health were present at the trial he would testify that the capsules and tablets taken from appellant contained dilaudid and cocaine.
On cross-examination the deputy sheriff testified that the arrest of appellant was for interfering with officers in the execution of the search warrant, but that no formal charge had been filed against appellant pursuant to such arrest.
Appellant poses two questions for review:
1) The affidavit for search warrant did not contain sufficient factual allegations to furnish probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant, and, consequently, the lower court erred in not granting appellant's motion to quash suppress any evidence obtained by the search.
2) The state failed to sufficiently identify the appellant at the trial and that the lower court should have granted appellant's motion for directed verdict of Not Guilty.
We...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Andreasen v. State, 81-955
...133 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), appeal dismissed, 298 So.2d 419 (Fla.1974); Dancy v. State, 284 So.2d 452 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Dixon v. State, 180 So.2d 681 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965), cert. dismissed, 188 So.2d 318 (Fla.), appeal dismissed, 188 So.2d 810 (Fla.1966). The test to be applied in reviewing the ......
-
Pesce v. State
...to cause a prudent man of affiant's experience' to believe that defendant was using his home for illegal activities. Dixon v. State, Fla.App.1965, 180 So.2d 681. The affidavit, in the case sub judice, is based on something more than mere conclusions or mere suspicions of both the informant ......
-
Dancy v. State, 73-235
...conclusion favorable to the state fairly and reasonably inferable therefrom. Lett v. State, Fla.App.1965, 174 So.2d 568; Dixon v. State, Fla.App.1965, 180 So.2d 681. After a thorough examination of the record, we conclude that there was substantial evidence with all reasonable inferences fa......
-
Dixon v. State
...318 188 So.2d 318 Willie Gray DIXON, Jr. v. STATE. No. 35201. Supreme Court of Florida. March 1966. Certiorari dismissed without opinion. 180 So.2d 681. ...