ANIBAL AND REBECA SOTO ET AL., APPELLANTS,
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.
Appellants Anibal and Rebeca Soto and others appealed their convictions for aiding or assisting in conducting a lottery, challenging the validity of the search warrant and the sufficiency of evidence. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed their convictions and sentences, finding no reversible error.
The appellate court affirmed the judgments and sentences, finding no reversible error. The court determined that the trial court did not err in denying motions to quash and suppress the evidence from the search warrant and that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions.
[1] A judgment or sentence in a criminal case will not be reversed on appeal unless an error committed injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant.
[2] Appellate courts will affirm judgments and sentences when no reversible error has been demonstrated after considering the record, briefs, and arguments of counsel in ligh…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“no judgment or sentence in a criminal case will be reversed unless the appellate court after an examination of the record is of the opinion that error was committed which injuriously affected substantial rights of the appellant”
Establishes the governing standard of review for criminal appeals in Florida
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants were tried in a nonjury trial on January 27 and February 1, 1975, for aiding or assisting in conducting a lottery. On March 25, 1975, they …
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 Probable Cause For Search Warrant cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants bring these consolidated appeals from the trial court’s adjudication of their guilt and sentencing for aiding or assisting in conducting a lottery.
Appellants were tried nonjury on January 27 and February 1, 1975, for aiding or as-, sisting in conducting a lottery. On March 25, 1975, they were adjudicated guilty and sentenced. From these judgments and sentences, appellants bring these consolidated appeals.
Appellants contend on appeal that the trial court erred in issuing a warrant to’ search the premises involved in these cases because probable cause did not exist for its issuance, thereby depriving appellants of their constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; and that the trial court erred in failing to grant their motions for judgment of acquittal because, as a matter of law, the evidence was insufficient to sustain their convictions. Additionally, appellants Aníbal and Rebeca Soto contend that the fines imposed by their sentences are illegal and should be vacated.
Appellee contends that the trial court did not err in denying appellants’ motions to quash and suppress evidence obtained pursuant to the search warrant, and that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions of appellants.
It is a well settled principle that no judgment or sentence in a criminal case will be reversed unless the appellate court after an examination of the record is of the opinion that error was committed which injuriously affected substantial rights of the appellant. Blackman v. State, Fla.App.1973, 279 So. 2d 99; Matera v. State, Fla.App.1969, 218 So. 2d 180, cert, den. Galtieri v. Florida, 396 U.S. 955, 90 S.Ct. 424, 24 L.Ed.2d 420; Sylvia v. State, Fla.App.1968, 210 So. 2d 286, cert. den. 393 U.S. 981, 89 S.Ct. 452, 21 L.Ed.2d 442; § 924.33 Fla.Stat., F.S.A.; and see 2 Fla. Jur., Appeals § 358.
We have considered the record, all points in the briefs and arguments ‘of counsel in the light of the controlling principles of law, and have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated. Therefore, for the reasons stated and upon the authorities cited, the judgments and sentences appealed are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reno v. Honorable Paul Baker, 364 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…respondent to two convicted persons. The defendants were convicted in a non-jury trial and given three-year sentences. On appeal, the convictions were affirmed by this court and certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court of Florida. Soto v. State, 325 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert, dismissed July 30, 1976, 336 So. 2d 1184. The defendants then moved the trial court to mitigate the sentences and the trial court did so. On the State’s petition for certiorari, this court reviewed the trial court’s order…
-
Powers v. State, 369 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…entire record in this case leads us to the conclusion that no error was committed which injuriously affected any substantial rights of appellant. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence appealed are affirmed. See, e. g., Soto v. State, 325 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Blackman v. State, 279 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Matera v. State, 218 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); Sylvia v. State, 210 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); and § 924.33, Fla.Stat. (1977). Affirmed.…
-
Anibal Sotto v. Louie L. Wainwright, 601 F.2d 184 (5th Cir. 1979)…ted of aiding or assisting in conducting a lottery, possession of lottery tickets and possession of lottery paraphernalia and sentenced to three years in prison. After Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions, Soto v. State, 325 So. 2d 414 (Dist.Ct.App., 1976), Sotto and Amor petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for writs of certiorari; the court denied the petition on July 30, 1976. Sotto v. State, 336 So. 2d 1184 (Fla., 1976). Pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.800(b), on September 23, 19…
Authorities Cited
- Matera v. State, 218 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Blackman v. State, 279 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Sylvia v. State, 210 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Nelson v. George, 396 U.S. 955 (U.S. 1969)
- Sulger v. Pochyla, 393 U.S. 981 (U.S. 1968)
- Curry v. Florida Bar, 393 U.S. 981 (U.S. 1968)