Headrick v. State, KK-498
| Decision Date | 28 December 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. KK-498,KK-498 |
| Parties | Stanley HEADRICK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Stephen A. Smith of Smith & Smith, Lake City, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Carolyn M. Snurkowski, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Headrick appeals from a plea of nolo contendere to burglary and grand larceny wherein he reserved the right to appeal the admissibility of a confession made after twenty-four hours of imprisonment, but before his first appearance. We disagree with his argument that the violation of Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.130(b) requires that the confession be automatically suppressed. Here, the defendant was advised of his rights and we have concluded that the confession was otherwise voluntary. Further, there is no indication that the delay induced the confession. Romanello v. State, 160 So.2d 529 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964), cert. denied, 168 So.2d 148 (Fla.1964).
Each case must be examined Upon its own facts to determine whether a violation of Rule 3.130(b), considering its purpose and effect, has induced an otherwise voluntary confession. See Kilgore v. State, 350 So.2d 1144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Accordingly, we affirm.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chavez v. State
...hours is per se inadmissible. We agree with the reasoning expressed by the First District Court of Appeal in Headrick v. State, 366 So.2d 1190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), that each case must be examined upon its own facts to determine whether a violation of the rule has induced an otherwise volunt......
-
Com. v. Perez
...27 Cal.3d 303, 165 Cal.Rptr. 289, 611 P.2d 883 (1980); People v. Heintze, 200 Colo. 248, 614 P.2d 367 (1980); Headrick v. State, 366 So.2d 1190 (Fla. Dist. Ct.App. 1 Dist. 1978); State v. Wyman, 97 Idaho 486, 547 P.2d 531 (1976), overruled on other grounds, State v. McCurdy, 100 Idaho 683, ......
-
Chavez v. State
...hours is per se inadmissible. We agree with the reasoning expressed by the First District Court of Appeal in Headrick v. State, 366 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), that each case must be examined upon its own facts to determine whether a violation of the rule has induced an otherwise volun......
-
Cribbs v. State, LL-355
...3.130(b). Although a violation of Rule 3.130(b) does not in and of itself require suppression of a confession, Headrick v. State, 366 So.2d 1190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), this factor is significant here in light of the previous erroneous information given by Parrish. Had Cribbs received a timely......