BRYANT WILLIAM BOWLES, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Bowles appealed his drug trafficking conviction, challenging the constitutionality of the trafficking statute, the legality of the search and seizure, the admission of his oral statement, the denial of his continuance motion, and jury instructions. The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding no reversible error.
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence. The trafficking statute is constitutional under Benitez v. State. The search warrant was properly obtained based on Bowles' initial consent followed by flight from the scene. The oral statement was properly admitted because Bowles failed to object at trial. The denial of the continuance motion was not an abuse of discretion, and the jury instructions did not erroneously comment on the evidence.
[1] A constitutional challenge to a drug trafficking statute may be rejected based on prior appellate authority upholding the statute.
[2] Competent substantial evidence in the record can support a trial court's holding that no illegal search occurred.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“we find abundant evidence in the record to uphold the action of the police in securing a search warrant to search appellant's plane after appellant, who initially consented to a search of the plane, fled the scene”
Establishes that the search warrant was validly obtained despite the trial court's incorrect finding of abandonment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBowles was convicted of drug trafficking. Police conducted a search of his plane after he initially consented to the search but then fled the scene. A…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Abandonment Of Property cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a conviction and sentence for drug trafficking. On appeal it is asserted by appellant that the trafficking statute is unconstitutional; that evidence used against him was secured as the result of an improper search and seizure; that a statement was improperly used against him; that his motion for continuance was improperly denied; and that the trial court erred in instructing the jury. We affirm.
In our view appellant’s constitutional challenge must be rejected on the authority of Benitez v. State, 395 So. 2d 514 (Fla.1981). As to the allegedly illegal search and seizure we believe there is competent substantial evidence in the record to support the trial court’s holding that no illegal search took place. We agree with appellant that the trial court’s finding of abandonment was not correct. However, we find abundant evidence in the record to uphold the action of the police in securing a search warrant to search appellant’s plane after appellant, who initially consented to a search of the plane, fled the scene. As to the admission of appellant’s oral statement, our examination of the record reveals that appellant failed to object to the introduction of such statement at trial and, hence, he is barred from raising the issue on appeal. Witt v. State, 388 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). We find no abuse in the trial court’s denial of the motion for continuance made at trial. See generally Vitiello v. State, 167 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964) and Brown v. State, 224 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). Nor do we find that the trial court erroneously commented on the evidence in the instructions to the jury.
Accordingly, no reversible error having been demonstrated, the judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
DOWNEY and ANSTEAD, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Benitez, 395 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 1981)
- Floyd v. State, 167 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- Witt v. State, 388 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Markey v. JAE SAM LEE, 224 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Brown v. State, 224 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)