Bevel v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bevel v. State

460 So. 2d 493, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2564, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 16446

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 10, 1984

DocketNo. AZ-354

StatusPublished

This text of 460 So. 2d 493 (Bevel 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

Bevel v. State, 460 So. 2d 493, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2564, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 16446 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

MILLS, Judge.

Bevel appeals from the summary denial of his motion pursuant to Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. In that motion, he argued that: 1) he had been denied due process in that he was not taken before a magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest; 2) his constitutional rights were violated by the State’s comment on his refusal to testify before the grand jury; 3) the State failed to give him proper Miranda warnings; and 4) evidence against him was obtained by an illegal search and seizure. We affirm.

When all the grounds for postcon-viction relief either were or could have been raised on direct appeal, summary denial of the motion will be upheld. Alday v. State, 431 So.2d 714 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Bevel’s conviction was affirmed by this Court, without opinion, in Bevel v. State, 450 So.2d 490 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The issue on appeal was whether “the state’s seizure of physical evidence, the obtaining of appellant’s statements, its refusal to take him promptly before a magistrate, and its comment on appellant’s refusal to testify at the grand jury proceedings” violated his constitutional rights so as to warrant a new trial. Therefore, Bevel has already raised on direct appeal the grounds for postconviction relief stated herein and summary denial of his motion was proper.

We affirm.

SHIVERS and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.

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

MILLS, Judge.

Bevel appeals from the summary denial of his motion pursuant to Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. In that motion, he argued that: 1) he had been denied due process in that he was not taken before a magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest; 2) his constitutional rights were violated by the State’s comment on his refusal to testify before the grand jury; 3) the State failed to give him proper Miranda warnings; and 4) evidence against him was obtained by an illegal search and seizure. We affirm.

When all the grounds for postcon-viction relief either were or could have been raised on direct appeal, summary denial of the motion will be upheld. Alday v. State, 431 So.2d 714 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Bevel’s conviction was affirmed by this Court, without opinion, in Bevel v. State, 450 So.2d 490 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The issue on appeal was whether “the state’s seizure of physical evidence, the obtaining of appellant’s statements, its refusal to take him promptly before a magistrate, and its comment on appellant’s refusal to testify at the grand jury proceedings” violated his constitutional rights so as to warrant a new trial. Therefore, Bevel has already raised on direct appeal the grounds for postconviction relief stated herein and summary denial of his motion was proper.

We affirm.

SHIVERS and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

460 So. 2d 493, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2564, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 16446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bevel-v-state-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack