Loften v. State

173 So. 2d 157, 1965 Fla. App. LEXIS 4433
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 30, 1965·No. No. 64-404·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, defendant in the trial court, seeks review of an adverse jury verdict and judgment of conviction thereon, finding the appellant guilty of breaking and entering a dwelling and of grand larceny.

The principal point relied on for reversal is that the trial court erred in failing to grant the motion to suppress certain evidence. The reasonableness of the search incident to a lawful arrest is a question for determination by a trial court. See: Haile v. Gardner, 82 Fla. 355, 91 So. 376; Longo v. State, 157 Fla. 668, 26 So.2d 818; Starks v. State, Fla.App.1959, 108 So.2d 788. Examining the record on appeal in the instant case in light of this principle, it is apparent that the search was reasonable under the circumstances. See: James v. State, Fla.1955, 80 So.2d 699; Gaskins v. State, Fla.1956, 89 So.2d 867.

Therefore, the judgment and conviction here under review is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Loften v. State, 173 So. 2d 157, 1965 Fla. App. LEXIS 4433 (Fla. Ct. App. 1965).

173 So. 2d 157 (Loften v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gagnon v. State
212 So. 2d 337 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1968)