Moore v. Wainwright, O--156
| Decision Date | 20 May 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. O--156,O--156 |
| Citation | 248 So.2d 262 |
| Parties | Henry Lewis MOORE, Appellant, v. L. L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, and John W. Watson, III, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant, together with three codefendants, was indicted for breaking and entering a store building with intent to commit larceny, and larceny of a pickup truck. Appellant's trial by a jury resulted in a verdict of guilty upon which he was adjudged guilty and sentenced to a term of imprisonment in the state prison. The sole point raised on this appeal challenges the correctness of the trial court's order which denied appellant's motion to suppress the evidence allegedly taken from the building which appellant was charged with having broken and entered. It is appellant's contention that the evidence was illegally seized without a search warrant in violation of the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, and should not have been admitted in evidence against him.
The testimony establishes without conflict that appellant and his three codefendants illegally entered a retail appliance store in Lake City late at night and removed therefrom ten television sets, six automobile tires, and several items of other property which they placed in a pickup truck owned by the company that operated the appliance business. The truck was driven to a building owned by one Craig Moses and generally referred to by the witnesses as an old 'abandoned farmhouse'. The television sets and other property were unloaded from the truck and temporarily stored in the vacant and unoccupied house until such time as they could be disposed of by the thieves. The owner of the property had given two of the codefendants, Carter Bush and William Fennell, permission to park their house trailer on the property at a location some fifty feet from the vacant dwelling. The two codefendants, together with the wife of one, were living in the house trailer at the time of the theft and at the time all four defendants were arrested several days thereafter.
Upon receiving a tip that the stolen property might be located at or near the farmhouse, the law enforcement officials drove to that location late at night for the purpose of making an investigation. Upon turning off of the road into the driveway leading to the house, the lights of their automobile shone through an open door onto a television set. No attempt was made at that point to further identify the property so observed, but the officers proceeded to the house trailer parked nearby. Shortly thereafter appellant and the two codefendants who lived in the house trailer arrived at the premises and were promptly arrested by the officers. After the arrest was made, the owner of the appliance store was summoned and he identified the television set which the officers observed at the open door of the dwelling at the time of their arrival. The house was then entered by the officers and there was found therein most of the other property identified by the owner as having been stolen from his store on the night it was broken and entered.
In support of his position appellant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Miller
...Constitutions. . . .' See also Gaskins v. State, Fla.1956, 89 So.2d 867; State v. Smith, Fla.App.1966, 193 So.2d 23; Moore v. Wainwright, Fla.App.1971, 248 So.2d 262; State v. O'Steen, Fla.App.1970, 238 So.2d 434; and Boim v. State, Fla.App.1967, 194 So.2d The fact that the trooper opened t......
-
Bailey v. State
...who is where he has a right to be, i.e. the so-called plain view doctrine. State v. Ashby, Fla.1971, 245 So.2d 225; Moore v. Wainwright, Fla.App.1971, 248 So.2d 262; Boim v. State, Fla.App.1967, 194 So.2d 313; and Powers v. State, Fla.App.1973, 271 So.2d 462. Under these latter circumstance......
-
Brant v. State
...and accrues only to the person who has the lawful right of occupation or possession of the premises searched. Moore v. Wainwright, 248 So.2d 262 (Fla.1st DCA 1971). Obviously, defendant had no right of possession or occupation in this adjacent room and, thus, we find no need of either a sea......
-
Russell v. State, 72--668
...Fla.1969, 226 So.2d 337; Mixon v. State, Fla.1957, 54 So.2d 190; Church v. State, 151 Fla. 24, 9 So.2d 164 (1942); Moore v. Wainwright, Fla.App.1971, 248 So.2d 262; Robinson v. State, Fla.App.1967, 194 So.2d 29; Testasecca v. State, Fla.App.1959, 115 So.2d 584; Alexander v. State, Fla.App.1......