Ratliff v. State, N--382
| Decision Date | 04 January 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. N--382,N--382 |
| Parties | Sonja Ray RATLIFF, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This is an appeal from an order denying appellant's motion to vacate the judgment of conviction on charges of manslaughter entered pursuant to a jury verdict.
Appellant was charged with operating a vehicle while intoxicated and under the influence of intoxicating liquors and colliding with another automobile, resulting in the death of the occupant thereof. The offense occurred on October 14, 1967, and appellant was indicted March 6, 1968. Apparently appellant's first trial resulted in a mistrial, but the second trial resulted in a judgment of conviction May 20, 1969, pursuant to which the court imposed an indeterminate sentence of from six months to four years. From all that appears, there was no direct appeal seeking reversal of the judgment of conviction.
Appellant contends that his conviction should be set aside because the police refused his demand for an alcohol test to determine whether he was intoxicated, which demand defendant made when he learned that he was being charged with manslaughter while intoxicated. The demand was made October 14, 1967.
Appellant argues that refusal to administer the test constituted a violation of his constitutional right to 'fundamental fairness' and thus he was deprived of due process of law. In support of the contention that appellant should have been given a test upon request, the court is referred to the provisions of Section 322.261, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., which provide as follows:
'Any person arrested for any offense allegedly committed while the person was driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages may request the arresting officer to have a chemical test made of the arrested person's breath, blood, saliva, or urine for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of such person's blood, and, if so requested, the arresting officer shall have the test performed.'
While the above statute is couched in mandatory terms as contended by appellant, we must observe that the statute did not take effect until January 1, 1968. This effective date was after the incident resulting in appellant's difficulties. At the time appellant requested that he be given a blood alcohol test, the legislature had not yet adopted the standard which appellant says the arresting officer should have followed. The officer can hardly be faulted for refusing an arrestee's demand for a blood alcohol test when the legislature had not yet adopted such a requirement as its version of 'fundamental fairness'. No error of fundamental proportions is shown by appellant in this regard.
The next point asserted in support of appellant's motion to vacate is that he was deprived of constitutional due process of law when the trial court permitted witnesses to remain in the courtroom while other witnesses gave testimony. The two witnesses of whom appellant complains were police officers who testified in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Harriston, 13933
...orders, either by statute or judicial tradition. 7 Grace v. State, Del.Supr., 314 A.2d 169 (1973). See also, Ratliff v. State, Fla.Dist.Ct.App., 256 So.2d 262 (1972) (police officers excluded because they are disinterested in the outcome of the case). However, some courts have specifically ......
-
Anderson v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.
...infirmity of a judgment or sentence, not to review ordinary trial errors cognizable by means of a direct appeal. Ratliff v. State, 256 So. 2d 262, 264 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972). In addition, even if Defendant's claim was cognizable in the instant rule 3.850 Motion, the Court finds that Mr. Ellis'......
-
McCrae v. State
...infirmity of a judgment or sentence, not to review ordinary trial errors cognizable by means of a direct appeal. Ratliff v. State, 256 So.2d 262 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972). The motion procedure is neither a second appeal nor a substitute for appeal. Matters which were raised on appeal and decided ......
-
Ballard v. State, 77-1776
...3d DCA 1975); Morrison v. State, 283 So.2d 137 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); Yanks v. State, 273 So.2d 401 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Ratliff v. State, 256 So.2d 262, 264 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972); Wilcox v. State, 171 So.2d 427 (Fla. 3d DCA ...