Law v. State
| Decision Date | 06 December 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 67--262,67--262 |
| Citation | 204 So.2d 741 |
| Parties | Carey LAW, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Joseph G. Spicola, Jr., Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William D. Roth, Asst. Atty. Gen. Lakeland, for appellee.
The appellant-defendant has appealed a judgment and sentence entered against him by the Criminal Court of Record of Hillsborough County, Florida. He was charged by information with breaking and entering and petit larceny. A jury found the appellant guilty and he was sentenced to five years in the state penitentiary.
The salient facts giving rise to appellant's conviction show that the M & A Garage in Tampa was burglarized on July 3, 1966. The owner of the garage was called to his place of business in the early morning hours on the above date, and, upon arrival, discovered that someone had broken into the cigarette machine and the cash register. All of the change and the cigarette machine was missing, along with some cigarette labels used to identify the various brands of cigarettes sold in the machine. Mr. Castro, the owner of the garage, testified that three dollars, which had been left in the cash register and clipped together with a staple, were also missing. After testifying with regards to the lights around the garage, the owner identified a bound envelope, which he had kept in his cigarette machine for some fifteen years. Certain of the above named articles were found on the appellant when he was arrested.
One of the State's witnesses, Charlie Maddox, on the evening in question, was stopped at a traffic light in the vicinity of the M & A Garage when a Mr. Suarez approached him. Suarez wanted Maddox to call the police. Maddox got a little excited, looked around, and saw someone in the garage. Whoever was in the garage exited through a broken window and fled down an alley. Maddox thereafter gave chase in his automobile. As Maddox proceeded down the alley, the intruder jumped the alley fence. Maddox then drove to Union Street and called for someone to get the police.
The person Maddox had seen in the garage and had given chase to was a colored male wearing a white tee shirt and he was not sure what kind of trousers the man had on other than the fact that they were dark or seemed dark to him at night.
Neither Maddox nor Suarez, who was also a State's witness, could identify the defendant as being the person they had seen in the garage.
Officer George J. Dragneff of the Tampa Police Department had been informed by a radio communication that a colored male wearing a white tee shirt and dark trousers was involved in a breaking and entering at the M & A Garage.
As Officer Dragneff approached the scene, he observed a colored male running approximately two blocks away from the location of the crime.
On cross-examination, Officer Dragneff was asked why he had pursued the defendant and placed him under arrest. The officer answered, 'When Carey Law (the defendant) ran from the alley, he was wearing the clothing described in the alert given us.'
The officer was then asked, 'What was the defendant wearing?' He answered,
We find in 1 Varon, Searches, Seizures and Immunities, Ch. II, § 3 (1961), in the chapter entitled 'The Law of Arrest,' a discussion of what constitutes making a valid arrest as follows:
Further, in § 4, page 78, under 'Probable cause to justify arrest without warrant,' it is stated:
'* * * 'Probable cause' therefore furnishes the distinction between a legal, or illegal search and seizure. This elusive term has been the basis of considerable controversy between the courts, law enforcement officers, defense counsel and accused persons, and it becomes imperative that we define what constitutes 'probable cause.'
'* * *
'We therefore continue our explanation of 'probable cause' which has been defined as a reasonable ground of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man in the belief that the person accused is guilty of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Howard v. State
...432 So.2d 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); McKee v. State, 430 So.2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 437 So.2d 677 (Fla.1983); Law v. State, 204 So.2d 741 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967). As his second issue, Howard argues that the trial court erred when it denied defense counsel's request that Howard be present......
-
Bank of Hawaii v. DeYoung
......"Questions of law are reviewable de novo under the right/wrong standard of review." Ditto v. McCurdy, 90 Hawai`i 345, 351, 978 P.2d 783, 789 (1999) (quoting Best Place, Inc. v. Penn America Ins. Co., 82 Hawai`i 120, 123, 920 P.2d 334, 337 (1996) (citing State v. Baranco, 77 Hawai`i 351, 355, 884 P.2d 729, 733 (1994) )). Under the de novo or right/wrong standard, this court "examine[s] the facts and answer[s] the question without being required to give any weight to the trial court's answer to it." Pelosi v. Wailea Ranch Estates, 91 Hawai`i 478, 487, ......
-
Cross v. State
...for arrest where the defendant attempted to flee when state agricultural inspectors began to inspect his truck. See also Law v. State, 204 So.2d 741 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967). The cases cited by appellant in his brief are inapposite since none of the facts of those cases begin to approximate the t......
-
Savoie v. State
...the evidence. O'Berry v. Wainwright, 300 So.2d 740 (Fla.4th DCA 1974); Bailey v. State, 295 So.2d 133 (Fla.4th DCA 1974); Law v. State, 204 So.2d 741 (Fla.2d DCA 1967). Contra, T. C. v. State, 336 So.2d 17 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); Davis v. State, 226 So.2d 257 (Fla.2d DCA 1969). We do not reach t......