OLIN ALBERT JONES, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss based on an illegal arrest, nor in refusing the untimely and redundant jury instruction.
The defendant was convicted of resisting an officer with violence and petit larceny. He appealed, arguing his arrest was illegal and that the trial co…
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 Legality Of Arrest cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant-appellant was informed against for (1) resisting an officer with violence to his person, and (2) petit larceny. He was tried by jury, found guilty of both counts and sentenced to two years in the state penitentiary for the first count. Imposition of sentence on the petit larceny count was withheld.
Defendant-appellant first contends that the trial court erred in denying defense counsel’s motion to dismiss the charges against him based on the alleged illegality of his arrest. We disagree.
We find that the arrest of the appellant was valid as the record clearly demonstrates that the arresting officer was acting pursuant to authority granted to him by the arrest statute, Fla.Stat. § 901.-15, F.S.A. See also Rosenberg v. State, Fla.App.1972, 264 So. 2d 68.
Turning to appellant’s second point on appeal that the trial court erred m refusing to give a jury instruction on impeachment requested by defense counsel, we find this contention to be lacking in merit because the request therefor was untimely and the instruction itself redundant as it was fully covered in the general charge to the jury. See CrPR 3.390, 33 F.S.A.; York v. State, Fla.App.1969, 232 So. 2d 767; Pabst v. State, Fla.App.1964, 169 So. 2d 329.
For the reasons cited hereinabove, the judgment and sentence herein appealed are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Saunders, 339 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1976)…he state must prove that the officer was attempting to make an arrest which he had lawful authority to make without a warrant. Licata v. State, 156 Fla. 692, 24 So. 2d 98 (1945); Kirby v. State, 217 So. 2d 619 (4th DCA Fla.1969). See Jones v. State, 293 So. 2d 116 (3d DCA Fla. 1974); Smith v. State, 292 So. 2d 69 (3d DCA Fla. 1974); Rosenberg v. State, 264 So. 2d 68 (4th DCA Fla. 1972); F.S. 843.01 (1973). After the episode which gave rise to these proceedings, the legislature enacted Ch. 74-383 § 13, Laws o…
-
Phillips v. State, 314 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…he state must prove that the officer was attempting to make an arrest which he had lawful authority to make without a warrant. Licata v. State, 156 Fla. 692, 24 So. 2d 98 (1945); Kirby v. State, 217 So. 2d 619 (4th DCA Fla.1969). See Jones v. State, 293 So. 2d 116 (3d DCA Fla.1974); Smith v. State, 292 So. 2d 69 (3d DCA Fla.1974); Rosenberg v. State, 264 So. 2d 68 (4th DCA Fla.1972); F.S. 843.01 (1973). Thus, isolating, does the public use of the expletive, F-you, standing alone, provide legally sufficient p…
-
Bondu v. State, 311 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed on the authority of Ward v. State, 124 Fla. 113, 168 So. 397; Forceier v. State, Fla.App.1961, 133 So. 2d 336; State v. Smith, Fla. 1970, 240 So. 2d 807; Williams v. State, Fla.1973, 285 So. 2d 13; Jones v. State, Fla.App.1974, 293 So. 2d 116; Rule 3.390(d), CrPR.…
Authorities Cited
- Rosenberg v. State, 264 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- York v. State, 232 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)
- Pabst v. State, 169 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)