Williams v. State
| Decision Date | 31 May 1966 |
| Docket Number | 65--473,Nos. 65--466,s. 65--466 |
| Citation | 187 So.2d 913 |
| Parties | Morena WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. Ray Ellis OSMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Herbert Friesner, Miami, for appellants.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Herbert P. Benn, First Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before PEARSON, CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.
The appellants seek review of their convictions, adjudications and sentences, entered by the trial court pursuant to a non-jury trial on charges of violating certain lottery laws.
Informations were filed against both the appellants, charging them as follows: Count I--operating a lottery; Count II--aiding or assisting in conducting a lottery; Count III---possession of implements or devices for conducting a lottery; Count IV--possession of lottery tickets; Count V--aiding or assisting in sale, disposal or procurement of lottery tickets. The appellants moved to quash the affidavit for the search warrant; to quash the search warrant and suppress the evdence, which motions were denied by the trial court. The cause proceeded to a non-jury trial and, at the conclusion thereof, the trial court found Osman guilty of Counts I, III, IV and V; and found Williams guilty of Counts II, III, IV and V. Osman was sentenced to three years in the State penitentiary on Count I and one year in the County jail on each of Counts III, IV and V, to run concurrently with the sentence imposed on Count I. Williams was sentenced to one year in the County jail on each of Counts II, III, IV and V, the sentences on Counts III, IV and V to run concurrently with the sentence imposed on Count II. Appeal was taken from the convictions, adjudications and sentences. These appeals were consolidated in this court.
The appellants contend that the trial court erred in failing to quash the search warrant and suppress the evidence seized thereunder, on the grounds that failure of the affidavit to mention the name of the person who occupied the premises searched (when such information was readily ascertainable) rendered the search warrant invalid. An examination of the affidavit and search warrant indicates they met the statutory requirements. See: Church v. State, 151 Fla. 24, 9 So.2d 164; Harvey v. Drake, Fla.1949, 40 So.2d 214; § 933.04, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
The appellants also contend error in convicting Osman on the charge of operating a lottery, when the evidence as reflected by the record on appeal is insufficient to sustain the conviction. An examination of the record indicates competent, sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction and, therefore, same should not be disturbed on appeal. See: Crum v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 24; Devlin v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So.2d 82; Escobar v. State, Fla.App.1966, 181...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sylvia v. State, s. 67--430
...is the duty of an appellate court not to disturb the verdict under review. Sharon v. State, Fla.App.1963, 156 So.2d 677; Williams v. State, Fla.App.1966, 187 So.2d 913; Richburg v. State, Fla.App.1967, 199 So.2d It is also urged that the trial court erred in failing to permit the evidence t......
-
Traber v. State
...this point is not well taken. Crum v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 24; Escobar v. State, Fla.App.1966, 181 So.2d 193; Williams v. State, Fla.App.1966, 187 So.2d 913; Richburg v. State, Fla.App.1967, 199 So.2d 488. The appellant also urges that the court erred in permitting certain evidenc......
-
Laytner v. State, s. 68--502
...an adjudication of guilt should not be interfered with by an appellate court. Crum v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 24; Williams v. State, Fla.App.1966, 187 So.2d 913; Evans v. State, Fla.App.1969, 218 So.2d 515. Examining the record in light of these principles, we find no error in the tr......
-
Tsukano v. State., 68-353
...v. State, Fla.1950, 46 So.2d 453; Tracey v. State, Fla.1961, 130 So.2d 605; Hall v. State, Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 372; Williams v. State, Fla.App.1966, 187 So.2d 913; Walden v. State, Fla.App.1966, 191 So.2d 68; Richburg v. State, Fla.App.1967, 199 So.2d 488; Shifrin v. State, Fla.App.1968......