Howard v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Howard v. State

221 So. 2d 735, 1969 Fla. LEXIS 2394

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedApril 23, 1969

DocketNo. 38274

StatusPublished

This text of 221 So. 2d 735 (Howard v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Howard v. State, 221 So. 2d 735, 1969 Fla. LEXIS 2394 (Fla. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner alleges that his felony conviction below was unconstitutionally tainted by use at trial of testimony concerning statements elicited from petitioner while in police custody and without his having been informed of the constitutional right to remain silent and to have counsel. Petitioner has exhausted his available remedies under Criminal Procedure Rule 1.850, 33 F.S.A. We granted Writ of Habeas Corpus and required a return.

Now, having considered the return, we think it necessary to appoint a Commissioner in this cause who can determine to what extent the testimony complained of may have been constitutionally inadmissible. Accordingly, we appoint the Honorable Harold R. Vann, Circuit Judge of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, as Commissioner. Judge Vann is empowered to take such testimony as shall be deemed necessary, and, thereafter, he is to report with all convenient speed to this Court the testimony taken, along with his findings and whatever recommendations he may make concerning this cause. Petitioner may be-represented by counsel of his choice.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, C. J., and DREW, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner alleges that his felony conviction below was unconstitutionally tainted by use at trial of testimony concerning statements elicited from petitioner while in police custody and without his having been informed of the constitutional right to remain silent and to have counsel. Petitioner has exhausted his available remedies under Criminal Procedure Rule 1.850, 33 F.S.A. We granted Writ of Habeas Corpus and required a return.

Now, having considered the return, we think it necessary to appoint a Commissioner in this cause who can determine to what extent the testimony complained of may have been constitutionally inadmissible. Accordingly, we appoint the Honorable Harold R. Vann, Circuit Judge of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, as Commissioner. Judge Vann is empowered to take such testimony as shall be deemed necessary, and, thereafter, he is to report with all convenient speed to this Court the testimony taken, along with his findings and whatever recommendations he may make concerning this cause. Petitioner may be-represented by counsel of his choice.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, C. J., and DREW, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 So. 2d 735, 1969 Fla. LEXIS 2394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howard-v-state-fla-1969.