Beaton v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Beaton v. State

764 So. 2d 1, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1373, 1998 WL 63999

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 18, 1998

DocketNo. 97-0726

StatusPublished

This text of 764 So. 2d 1 (Beaton v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beaton v. State, 764 So. 2d 1, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1373, 1998 WL 63999 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

We grant the motion for rehearing, withdraw our prior opinion, and substitute the following opinion in its place.

Wayne Beaton appeals his conviction and sentence for burglary of an occupied dwelling and grand theft. He first claims his confession should have been suppressed since he was not reread his Miranda rights after the subject of interrogation changed several times. Based on our review of the record, we do not find this argument persuasive, and, therefore, affirm on this point. See Nixon v. State, 572 So.2d 1836 (Fla.1990); Enriquez v. State, 449 So.2d 845 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). He concedes that his remaining two points on appeal were not preserved below, and we do not find any alleged error to be fundamental. Accordingly, we affirm as to them as well.

POLEN, STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

We grant the motion for rehearing, withdraw our prior opinion, and substitute the following opinion in its place.

Wayne Beaton appeals his conviction and sentence for burglary of an occupied dwelling and grand theft. He first claims his confession should have been suppressed since he was not reread his Miranda rights after the subject of interrogation changed several times. Based on our review of the record, we do not find this argument persuasive, and, therefore, affirm on this point. See Nixon v. State, 572 So.2d 1836 (Fla.1990); Enriquez v. State, 449 So.2d 845 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). He concedes that his remaining two points on appeal were not preserved below, and we do not find any alleged error to be fundamental. Accordingly, we affirm as to them as well.

POLEN, STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

764 So. 2d 1, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1373, 1998 WL 63999, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beaton-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack