Dukes v. State
| Decision Date | 06 March 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-286,86-286 |
| Citation | 503 So.2d 455,12 Fla. L. Weekly 717 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 717 Bruce Edward DUKES, a/k/a Bruce Williams, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Loyd C. Mosley, Clearwater, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Joseph R. Bryant, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Defendant appeals from his conviction and sentence for armed robbery, possession of a short-barreled shotgun and aggravated battery. We affirm.
Defendant robbed a convenience store. Armed with a short-barreled shotgun, he entered the store, displayed the gun, and ordered the clerk to lie on the floor while an accomplice took money from the register and placed it in a brown paper bag. As the pair left the store with the money, defendant struck an incoming patron in the face with the gun. A companion of the patron who was struck ran from the store and saw one of the robbers leave the area in a yellow van. A BOLO was issued on the van within minutes of the robbery. A short time later a van of that description was located in a shopping plaza parking lot. A witness who lived near the convenience store reported to the police seeing a yellow van driving past her house twice at about the time of the robbery. That witness was taken to the parking lot by police and identified the yellow van as the one that drove past her house.
A check of the van's tag number showed ownership by defendant. It was also determined that defendant's palm print had been found alongside a cash register at the scene of another recent convenience store robbery nearby.
The police began a stakeout of the van which ended some twenty-five hours later when defendant and three other individuals approached the van in a car, attached a cable to the van and began towing it away. The police then stopped the van and searched it, purportedly pursuant to the driver's consent. The search produced the shotgun and the bag of stolen money which were admitted into evidence at the trial.
The trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress that evidence on the basis that the police had both probable cause and consent to search the van.
On appeal, the defendant raises five issues, three of which we discuss.
Citing Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971), defendant contends the police should have obtained a warrant to search the van. He argues that the van had been under surveillance for twenty-five hours with the intent to search it. However, a warrantless search of an automobile may be valid if there is probable cause to believe that it contains contraband and there are exigent circumstances. Ulesky v. State, 379 So.2d 121, 125 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979). The trial judge was entitled to conclude that there was a sufficient basis for a belief by the officers that the van contained contraband. See Barnes v. State, 406 So.2d 84 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Beck v. State, 181 So.2d 659 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966). The attempt to move the van out of the area, which could have happened at any time, created the exigent circumstances. See G.J.S. v. State, 393 So.2d 14 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). See also Coolidge, supra. We therefore need not address the lack of consent contention.
Defendant also contends the trial judge erred in denying defendant's motion to discharge defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. State, 3D98-3388.
...4th DCA 1997), the Fourth District Court of Appeal concurred with the Second District Court of Appeal's decision in Dukes v. State, 503 So.2d 455 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), and held that a Nelson inquiry need not be conducted when the motion to discharge counsel is made only after the trial has be......
-
Dunn v. State, 97-3646
...after the commencement of trial. 689 So.2d at 1246; see also Wyatt v. State, 714 So.2d 663, 664 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Dukes v. State, 503 So.2d 455, 456 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). We also find no abuse of discretion or reversible error in the trial court's denial of Appellant's motions for mistrial......
-
Butler v. State
... ... in progress'-a request to discharge counsel is untimely ... after trial has already begun." (alteration in original) ... (quoting Haugabook v. State, 689 So.2d 1245, 1246 ... (Fla. 4th DCA 1997))); e.g., Dukes v ... State, 503 So.2d 455, 456 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) ... (holding that a Nelson inquiry was not required ... where the defendant requested to discharge counsel after the ... trial began); Dunston v. State, 890 So.2d 483, ... 484-85 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (holding that a ... ...
-
T.D. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 5D15–4460.
...trial " (quoting Nelson, 274 So.2d at 258–59 )); accord Wilson v. State, 753 So.2d 683, 686–87 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) ; Dukes v. State, 503 So.2d 455, 456 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). In her second ground, Appellant contends that the trial court erred by not orally instructing her at the conclusion of t......