STANLEY HEADRICK, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Admissibility Of Confessions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Headrick appeals from a plea of nolo contendere to burglary and grand larceny wherein he reserved the right to appeal the admissibility of a confession made after twenty-four hours of imprisonment, but before his first appearance. We disagree with his argument that the violation of Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.130(b) requires that the confession be automatically suppressed. Here, the defendant was advised of his rights and we have concluded that the confession was otherwise voluntary. Further, there is no indication that the delay induced the confession. Romanello v. State, 160 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964), cert. denied, 168 So. 2d 148 (Fla.1964).
Each case must be examined upon its own facts to determine whether a violation of Rule 3.130(b), considering its purpose and effect, has induced an otherwise voluntary confession. See Kilgore v. State, 350 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Accordingly, we affirm.
McCORD, C. J., and ERVIN and MELVIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chavez v. State, 832 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 2002)…ion of the rule has been shown, we reject Keen’s suggestion that an otherwise voluntary statement given after twenty-four hours is per se inadmissible. We agree with the reasoning expressed by the First District Court of Appeal in Headrick v. State, 366 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), that each case must be examined upon its own facts to determine whether a violation of the rule has induced an otherwise voluntary confession. Id. at 1191. The court reasoned that when a defendant has been advised of his rights…
-
Keen v. State, 504 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1987)…ion of the rule has been shown, we reject Keen’s suggestion that an otherwise voluntary statement given after twenty-four hours is per se inadmissible. We agree with the reasoning expressed by the First District Court of Appeal in Headrick v. State, 366 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), that each case must be examined upon its own facts to determine whether a violation of the rule has induced an otherwise voluntary confession. Id. at 1191. The court reasoned that when a defendant has been advised of his rights…
-
Cribbs v. State, 378 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…ance before a judicial officer within twenty-four hours of his arrest as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.130(b). Although a violation of Rule 3.130(b) does not in and of itself require suppression of a confession, Headrick v. State, 366 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), this factor is significant here in light of the previous erroneous information given by Parrish. Had Cribbs received a timely first appearance, the taint from the previous misinformation .given by Parrish may well have been cure…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Romanello v. State, 160 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- Mankus v. Wainwright, 168 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 1964)
- Jones v. Wainwright, 168 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 1964)
- Kilgore v. State, 350 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)