Taylor v. State, 73--595
| Citation | 289 So.2d 421 |
| Decision Date | 22 January 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 73--595,73--595 |
| Parties | Holley Curtis TAYLOR, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Appleton, Ernst, Miller & Kirwan, Key West, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before PEARSON, CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.
The appellant was informed against, tried by a jury and convicted on separate counts of unlawful possession of heroin and unlawful possession of marijuana. He was adjudged guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of two and one half years on the first count, and one and a half years on the second count, with provision for the sentences to be served concurrently.
Appealing therefrom the appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial, made when the state presented testimony that he was an inmate of a state prison camp. We find no error, and affirm.
For conviction of a prior offense the defendant had been confined at Big Pine Road Prison, on Big Pine Key in Monroe County. At the time of his arrest for the offenses involved in this case he was in the status of extended custody, residing apart from the prison camp under a work release program agreement.
Having become advised of certain actions of the defendant which were considered to be in violation of the work release agreement and for which the defendant was entitled to be taken into custody and returned to the prison, the officer in charge thereof, with two Monroe County officers, went to the apartment occupied by the defendant for the purpose of taking him into dustody and returning him to the camp. The defendant invited them in. The prison officer searched him, and found on his person a substance which the defendant then stated was 'grass.' The officer then delivered the substance (marijuana) to a Monroe County officer who arrested the defendant for possession thereof. A subsequent search of the apartment with benefit of a warrant disclosed further contraband, with possession of which the defendant was charged.
The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, contending it was obtained on an illegal search and seizure. The trial court correctly denied the motion, on the ground that the defendant was in a status of extended custody in which the official of the prison camp was entitled to search him without a warrant. Cf. Echols v. State, Fla.App.1967, 201 So.2d 89, 93--94; Lavazzoli v. State, Fl...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vera v. State
... ... Lilly, supra; Daughtery v. Harris, 476 F.2d 292 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 872, 94 S.Ct. 112, 38 L.Ed.2d 91 (1973). See generally Taylor v. State, 289 So.2d 421 (Fla.3d ... DCA 1974). Nonetheless, the Fourth Amendment does require that the searches and seizures conducted upon ... ...
-
Jones v. State, 82-245
...was, "perhaps unfortunate, but I do not think it was critical." See Holcomb v. State, 443 So.2d 185 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Taylor v. State, 289 So.2d 421 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). * Chief Judge Schwartz did not hear oral argument. ...
-
Lowman v. State, 76-2262
...is sufficient of itself to vitiate defendant's argument. See Killingsworth v. State, 90 Fla. 299, 105 So. 834 (1925); Taylor v. State, 289 So.2d 421 (Fla.3d DCA 1974). But the record also reveals that the actual instructions given the jury defined the law in a manner sufficient to encompass......
-
Adan v. State
...counsel himself elicited testimony of the burglary charge during the direct examination of the defendant. See Taylor v. State, 289 So.2d 421, 423 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). See also Killingsworth v. State, 90 Fla. 299, 105 So. 834, 837 (1925). Accordingly, no reversible error is ...