Kelley v. State
| Decision Date | 01 May 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 6982,6982 |
| Citation | 212 So.2d 27 |
| Parties | Dale KELLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Thomas W. Perkins, Bartow, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William D. Roth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.
The appellant, Dale Kelley, a former patrolman for the Police Department of the City of Mulberry, Florida, together with Horace Branch, the former police chief, J. L. Doggett, another former patrolman, and Bertram Dale Durden, were jointly charged in two counts in an information filed in Polk County with the offenses of conspiracy to commit robbery and robbery of a Thriftway Food Store on June 19, 1965.
The co-defendant, Bertram Dale Durden, pled guilty and testified for the state as an accomplice witness. The appellant, Dale Kelley, on September 6, 1965, made an electronically recorded post-Escobedo pre-Miranda confession, and on the next day entered a plea of guilty to the information in open court. He later denied the confession and was allowed to withdraw his plea of guilty. Upon trial the appellant was convicted on both counts and his co-defendants, Branch and Doggett, were acquitted. The appellant appeals from the judgment of conviction and sentence of ten years on the charge of robbery and a one-year sentence concurrent with the robbery sentence on the charge of conspiracy to commit robbery.
The appellant contends the lower court erred by admitting his confession into evidence and in denying his application for a change of venue.
With regard to the confession, the record reflects the appellant, Kelley, was arrested in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and voluntarily agreed to be taken back to Polk County, Florida. He claims that during the return trip to Florida the officers interrogated him steadily and did not advise him of his right to counsel. The officers testified that they advised the defendant of his right to counsel and denied steadily questioning the defendant on the trip. Upon the appellant's return to Bartow he was questioned for approximately one hour and after hearing a recording of a statement made by the co-defendant, Durden, and confronting Durden, the appellant made his confession on September 5, 1965. The appellant contends that he was emotionally unstable, having great concern for his family at this time. Extensive testimony out of the presence of the jury was taken to determine the voluntariness of the confession. The trial court found it to be voluntary and admitted it into evidence, allowing the jury to hear the recording, and in addition, allowing the jury to have a transcript of the confession to follow while listening to it. This court has reviewed the extensive record concerning this confession and finds that it was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Knight v. State
...matter out of their minds and try the case solely on the evidence presented in the courtroom. Id. at 1278 (citing Kelley v. State, 212 So.2d 27, 28 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)[)]. The trial court in its discretion must determine whether a defendant has raised such a presumption of prejudice under th......
-
Puiatti v. Secretary, Dept. of Corrections
...not possibly put these matters out of their minds and try the case solely upon the evidence presented in the courtroom. Kelley v. State, 212 So.2d 27 (Fla.App. 1968). Puiatti has not proven that sufficient bias existed in the jury pool as to warrant a change of venue, and thus has Puiatti n......
-
Sailor v. State
...v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 95 S.Ct. 2031, 44 L.Ed.2d 589 (1975); McCaskill v. State, 344 So.2d 1276 (Fla.1977); and Kelley v. State, 212 So.2d 27 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968), for determining whether to grant a change of [A] determination must be made as to whether the general state of mind of the inh......
-
Muhammad v. Crosby, No. SC04-1366 (FL 11/3/2005), SC04-1366.
...matter out of their minds and try the case solely on the evidence presented in the courtroom. Id. At 1278 (citing Kelley v. State, 212 So.2d 27, 28 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968). The trial court in its discretion must determine whether a defendant has raised such a presumption of prejudice under this ......