Ruiz v. State, 66--417
| Decision Date | 31 May 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 66--417,66--417 |
| Citation | 199 So.2d 478 |
| Parties | Victor Manuel RUIZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jack R. Nageley, Miami Beach, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Barry N. Semet, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before HENDRY, C.J., and CHARLES CARROLL and SWANN, JJ.
The appellant was indicted for rape. On trial before a jury he was convicted of the lesser included offense of assault with intent to commit rape. He was adjudged guilty thereof and sentenced to confinement for a period of 20 years in the state penitentiary. The three points presented on appeal have been considered in the light of the record and briefs, and are found to be without merit.
Denial of the defendant's motion to suppress certain evidence obtained from the apartment of one Rodriguez, was not error. Two men, later identified as the appellant and Rodriguez, entered the victim's residence. They tied up her maid, and when the victim returned to her home they also tied her up and robbed her of certain valuables; and then, according to the victim, the appellant raped her.
The victim and her maid identified the men from photographs supplied by the police, and subsequently the victim identified them in a police line-up.
The appellant and Rodriguez resided in separate apartments in an apartment building. Based on the initial identification from their photographs, the police proceeded to the apartment house where they resided and arrested the appellant and Rodriguez. The latter was arrested first. He was found seated beside the apartment house swimming pool, approximately 30 feet from the apartment he occupied. Upon searching Rodriguez' apartment the police found certain of the stolen property, one article of which bore a fingerprint of the appellant. Such evidence was offered for the purpose of placing the defendant at the scene of the alleged crime. Ruiz moved to suppress. The trial court denied the motion. We hold that ruling was correct.
The defendant claimed he had a proprietary interest in the Rodriguez apartment sufficient to entitle him to resist the use of the evidence, which it was contended had been obtained as a result of unlawful arrest and search. Specifically, the defendant contended the search of the Rodriguez apartment was not incident to the arrest but that Rodriguez was purposely arrested within his apartment as a means of making a search not otherwise authorized, and that the arrest was incident to the search. The record refutes that argument.
In considering the motion to suppress, the court was entitled to conclude from the evidence that Rodriguez was arrested prior to entering his apartment, and that the search of his apartment was incident to that arrest and was not remote in time or distance from the arrest. Moreover, the evidence relied on by the defendant to show standing to challenge the search made in the Rodriguez apartment was inadequate to support that claim. The evidence was to the effect that he had a key to Rodriguez' apartment, had spent a night there on occasion and that some articles belonging to him (glasses, water container, towels) were in Rodriguez' apartment. That showing did not meet the requirement that to enjoy standing to challenge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kluck v. State
...cases that the party challenging the legality of the search had any connection at all with the premises searched. In Ruiz v. State (Fla.App.1967), 199 So.2d 478, 479 also cited by the state, the court '* * * The evidence was to the effect that he had a key to Rodriguez' apartment, had spent......
-
Wooten v. State, s. 67--241
...by the Florida appellate courts in many cases. The two appeals are therefore affirmed on the merits, upon the authority of Ruiz v. State, Fla.App.1967, 199 So.2d 478; Tribue v. State, Fla.App.1958, 106 So.2d 630; State v. Smith, Fla.App.1960, 118 So.2d 792; Cameron v. State, Fla.App.1959, 1......
-
Betancourt v. State
...In so ruling the trial judge followed Florida law set forth in Evans v. State, Fla.App., 1967, 197 So.2d 323, and Ruiz v. State, Fla.App., 1967, 199 So.2d 478. The only relationship between the appellant and the marijuana seized in the apartment (and therefore that which must have been the ......
-
Jones v. State, 70--918
...bureau. This was sufficient compliance with the rule governing continuity of possession of such evidence prior to trial. Ruiz v. State, Fla.App.1967, 199 So.2d 478; Jones v. State, Fla.App.1967, 197 So.2d 829; Stunson v. State, Fla.App.1969, 228 So.2d This disposes adversely to appellants o......