Loften v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Loften v. State

173 So. 2d 157, 1965 Fla. App. LEXIS 4433

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 30, 1965

DocketNo. 64-404

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 173 So. 2d 157 (Loften 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 So. 2d 157, 1965 Fla. App. LEXIS 4433, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loften-v-state-fladistctapp-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack