Robinson v. State
| Decision Date | 25 January 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 6835,6835 |
| Parties | David Lee ROBINSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Joseph G. Spicola, Jr., Public Defender, and Marcus A. Wilkinson, III, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William D. Roth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.
Appellant has filed this appeal from an order denying relief under Criminal Procedure Rule One, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. Appellant and two other men were arrested for entering without breaking with intent to commit a felony and grand larceny. Appellant Robinson was found guilty as charged in the second count of the information. One Isaac Harris was also found guilty. These two men were sentenced to a term of four years at hard labor in the state prison. The third defendant, Henry Nixon Lucas, was found not guilty.
Appellant alleges as his first point on appeal that the trial court was in error when it failed to grant appellant a severance from the trial of the other defendants. In the case of Reddick v. State, Fla.App.1966, 190 So.2d 340, this court held that the denial of a motion for severance will not permit resort to relief under Criminal Procedure Rule One unless there are peculiarly aggravating facts in the case. In the Reddick case the defendant had been wrongfully induced to plead guilty, thereby virtually foreclosing any avenue of successful appeal. In this present appeal none of the extreme circumstances that existed in the Reddick case occurred, so the appellant cannot raise the denial of his motion for severance in this Rule One proceeding.
The second point on appeal is whether the trial court erred when it admitted State's exhibits 1, 2 and 3 into evidence prior to the corpus delicti of the crime being established by any evidence. The State presented a police officer as its first witness. He identified the three exhibits (photographs of the warehouse where the theft occurred) and they were admitted into evidence. The second witness presented by the State was the manager of the warehouse. He testified that the warehouse had been broken into and identified the photographs in question. Up to this point no testimony had been introduced concerning the appellant. The general rule in Florida is that the sufficiency of evidence to sustain conviction and the propriety of admission of evidence cannot be raised in a collateral proceeding under Criminal Procedure Rule One. Chayter v. State, Fla.App.1965, 176 So.2d 382; and Austin v. State, Fla.App.1964, 160 So.2d 730. Therefore, the appellant cannot raise the propriety of admission of the photographs into evidence in this Criminal Procedure Rule One proceeding.
The last three points raised in this appeal concern the validity of the search warrant and the search and seizure which occurred under it. The facts show that it is the search of the apartment occupied by Co-Defendant Lucas that appellant is attacking. The record reveals that Lucas was arrested in front of the building and that Lucas led the police officials to his apartment and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Joseph v. State, 81-591
...3d DCA 1971); Garner v. State, 218 So.2d 460, 463 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969); Paulk v. State, 211 So.2d 591 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); Robinson v. State, 194 So.2d 29 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967); Brown v. State, 187 So.2d 669 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 192 So.2d 485 (Fla.1966); Ziegler v. State, 180 So.2d 477 (F......
-
Kluck v. State
...the state, United States v. Beigel (2d Cir.1967), 370 F.2d 751; United States v. Liguori (2d Cir.1967), 373 F.2d 304; and Robinson v. State (Fla.App.1967), 194 So.2d 29, are inapplicable, for nowhere does it appear in the facts of those cases that the party challenging the legality of the s......
-
Suiero v. State
...searches and seizures can be asserted only by him whose rights are violated. 29 Fla.Jur., Search and Seizure, § 7. In Robinson v. State, Fla.App.1967, 194 So.2d 29, the Second District Court, in commenting upon the question of the standing to attack the legality of a search, 'The last three......
-
State v. Neely
...357 F.2d 124, 131; United States v. Bozza, Cir. 2, 365 F.2d 206, 223; United States v. Beigel, Cir. 2, 370 F.2d 751, 756; Robinson v. State, Fla.App., 194 So.2d 29, 31; Spinelli v. United States, Cir. 8, 382 F.2d 871, 879; Anno., 78 A.L.R.2d IV. Defendant argues his motion for directed verd......