Goode v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Goode v. State

279 So. 2d 352

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 27, 1973

DocketNo. Q-250

StatusPublished

This text of 279 So. 2d 352 (Goode 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

Goode v. State, 279 So. 2d 352 (Fla. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant vigorously contends by this appeal that extraction of blood samples without his expressed consent to an analysis to determine the alcoholic content contravenes the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States of America. Appellant states that the opinion of the Florida Supreme Court in State v. Mitchell, 245 So.2d 618 (Fla.1971) “is contrary to the position he now takes in relation to the constitutional principles involved.” Nevertheless he argues that the Florida Supreme Court in its Mitchell opinion, misconstrued the principles of Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966) and urges us to adopt what he views as the corrected interpretation of law as set forth in Mitchell v. State, 227 So.2d 728 (2 Fla.App.1969). It is not the role of this court to re-evaluate a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Florida. As stated in this court’s opinion of Dawson v. State, 266 So.2d 116 (1 Fla.App.1972) :

“The facts surrounding the extraction of blood from Dawson fall squarely within those detailed in the Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Mitchell, 245 So.2d 618 (Fla.1971), and thus this contention is without merit.”

The facts surrounding extraction of blood from appellant, Curtis Goode, also fall squarely in those detailed in Supreme Court’s decision State v. Mitchell, supra, and thus the judgment of conviction must be affirmed.

SPECTOR, C. J., and RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant vigorously contends by this appeal that extraction of blood samples without his expressed consent to an analysis to determine the alcoholic content contravenes the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States of America. Appellant states that the opinion of the Florida Supreme Court in State v. Mitchell, 245 So.2d 618 (Fla.1971) “is contrary to the position he now takes in relation to the constitutional principles involved.” Nevertheless he argues that the Florida Supreme Court in its Mitchell opinion, misconstrued the principles of Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966) and urges us to adopt what he views as the corrected interpretation of law as set forth in Mitchell v. State, 227 So.2d 728 (2 Fla.App.1969). It is not the role of this court to re-evaluate a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Florida. As stated in this court’s opinion of Dawson v. State, 266 So.2d 116 (1 Fla.App.1972) :

“The facts surrounding the extraction of blood from Dawson fall squarely within those detailed in the Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Mitchell, 245 So.2d 618 (Fla.1971), and thus this contention is without merit.”

The facts surrounding extraction of blood from appellant, Curtis Goode, also fall squarely in those detailed in Supreme Court’s decision State v. Mitchell, supra, and thus the judgment of conviction must be affirmed.

SPECTOR, C. J., and RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 So. 2d 352, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goode-v-state-fladistctapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack