Gentille v. State, 65--996
| Decision Date | 20 September 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 65--996,65--996 |
| Citation | 190 So.2d 200 |
| Parties | Anthony Wayne GENTILLE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender and Arthur J. England, Jr., Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Arden M. Siegendorf, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before PEARSON, CARROLL and SWANN, JJ.
The defendant, Anthony Wayne Gentille, appeals from the judgment of conviction and sentence in a non-jury case in which he was found guilty of the violation of Section 790.23, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and sentenced to ten years in the State Penitentiary.
Section 790.23(1) provides:
The defendant contends that the taking and use of his fingerprints to establish that he was a previously convicted felon in Florida, under another name, violated his constitutional rights and that the fingerprints were inadmissible in evidence because they were (a) taken other than for booking; (b) they were taken when defendant was without counsel, and (c) they caused the defendant to incriminate himself.
The pertinent portion of defendant's contention for reversal is set forth in these facts. The defendant was arrested on June 16, 1965, charged with robbery, and incarcerated. Counsel was appointed to represent him on this charge. On August 9, 1965, while in custody under the robbery charge, his fingerprints were taken. On the next day, an information charging him with violation of Section 790.23 (unlawful possession) was sworn to, and it was filed on August 13, 1965. State appointed counsel represented the defendant on the 'possession' charge, and he was arraigned, tried and convicted of the same. The robbery charge was then dismissed for lack of prosecution. When the defendant was fingerprinted, he was under lawful arrest and charged with robbery.
Section 30.31(1), Florida, Statutes, F.S.A., provides in part as follows:
(Emphasis added)
It is conceded that the fingerprints taken on August 9, 1965, are of the same person who was previously convicted of robbery in Florida under another name in 1956.
The case of Smith v. United States, 1963, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 324 F.2d 879, involves a similar situation. There, the court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
July v. State
...(7th Cir.); Napolitano v. United States, 340 F.2d 313 (1st Cir.); United States v. Thompson, 356 F.2d 216 (2nd Cir.); Gentile v. Florida, 190 So.2d 200 (Florida App.). cf. Bynum v. United States, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 368, 262 F.2d 465. And see the case note entitled 'Excluding from Evidence Fin......
-
Anderson v. State, 38778
...of a palm print is not a critical stage of the criminal proceeding entitling appellant to advice of counsel. See also Gentille v. State, 190 So.2d 200 (Fla.App.3d, 1966), where the fingerprints of the accused, taken after a lawful arrest and appointment of counsel without said counsel being......
-
Wincor v. State, 67-665
...testify relative to the fingerprint card signature on constitutional grounds, which we find not to be well taken. Accord, Gentille v. State, Fla.App.1966, 190 So.2d 200, cert. denied 386 U.S. 995, 87 S.Ct. 1313, 18 L.Ed.2d 342. Error is also urged in the failure to demonstrate that the blow......
-
State v. Smith, WD
... ... State v. Ford, 495 S.W.2d 408, 413(3) (Mo. banc 1973); Gentille v. State, 190 So.2d 200, 202(1, 2) (Fla.App.1966). There was no error in allowing the State to make use of the prints taken from Smith shortly ... ...