Jones v. State
| Decision Date | 25 May 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 70--1026,70--1026 |
| Citation | 248 So.2d 517 |
| Parties | Earton David JONES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender and Lewis S. Kimler, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and J. Robert Olian, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.
Appellant, defendant in the criminal court of record, appeals a robbery conviction. He contends error in two particulars: (1) that he was denied counsel at a preliminary hearing, citing Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1, 90 S.Ct. 1999, 26 L.Ed.2d 387, and (2) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction.
As to the first point, the First District Court of Appeal of Florida has held, in Harrison v. Wainwright, Fla.App.1971, 243 So.2d 427, that Coleman v. Alabama, supra, is not applicable in Florida and we think this case disposes of this point adverse to the appellant. Further, no motion was made in the trial court, either during the trial or in post-trial motions, raising the applicability of the doctrine in Coleman v. Alabama, supra. And we hold that even if Coleman v. Alabama, supra, were to be followed in Florida, it would be incumbent on defense counsel in proceeding subsequent to the cited decision to at least call this principle (and any alleged error in a criminal proceeding) to the attention of a trial judge no later than the close of the time for filing post-trial motions. See also: Miller v. State, Fla.App.1971, 246 So.2d 169. Compare Yakus v United States, 321 U.S. 414, 64 S.Ct. 660, 88 L.Ed. 834; Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91, 76 S.Ct. 158, 100 L.Ed. 83, wherein the Supreme Court of the United States has held that even a Federal constitutional right may be waived if not timely presented.
Turning to the other point on the sufficiency of the evidence, we find no merit in this contention in light of the evidence disclosing that the appellant and another were accosting the victim and his brother with a gun from outside of an automobile, at the time they were robbed by others within the automobile. If the appellant and the others outside the automobile were not active participants in the robbery, they were certainly aiders and abettors. Prather v. State, Fla.App.1966, 182 So.2d 273; Sotomayor v. State, Fla.App.1969, 224 So.2d 357; DeLaine v. State, Fla.App.1970, 230 So.2d 168; § 776.011, F.S.A.
Therefore, for the reasons above...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Durcan v. State
...to hear that he was deprived of his constitutional right to a jury trial. Sanford v. Rubin, 237 So.2d 134 (Fla.1970); Jones v. State, 248 So.2d 517 (Fla.3d DCA 1971); Clark v. State, 336 So.2d 468 (Fla.2d DCA 1976); Ellison v. State, 349 So.2d 731 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Pegues v. State, 361 So.......
-
Rubin v. State
...his discretion. Counsel urges that a fundamental constitutional right cannot be waived; with this we do not agree. Jones v. State, 248 So.2d 517 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Clark v. State, 336 So.2d 468 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Ellison v. State, 349 So.2d 731 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Pegues v. State, 361 So.......
-
Thomas v. State
...from the trial court and it may not be raised for the first time on appeal. See Silver v. State, Fla.1966, 188 So.2d 300; Jones v. State, Fla.App.1971, 248 So.2d 517, and Mahone v. State, Fla.App.1969, 222 So.2d 769. Cf. James v. State, Fla.App.1969, 223 So.2d 52. In addition, the record sh......
-
Delaney v. State, 76--997
...this court. Benitez v. State, 172 So.2d 520 (Fla.4th D.C.A. 1965); Hall v. State, 203 So.2d 202 (Fla.2nd D.C.A. 1967); Jones v. State, 248 So.2d 517 (Fla.3rd D.C.A. 1971); McPhee v. State, 254 So.2d 406 (Fla.1st D.C.A. 1971); Kruglak v. State, 300 So.2d 315 (Fla.3rd D.C.A. 1974); State v. B......