Sharretts v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sharretts v. State

186 So. 2d 41, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5314

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 26, 1966

DocketNo. 65-669

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 186 So. 2d 41 (Sharretts 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

Sharretts v. State, 186 So. 2d 41, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5314 (Fla. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was informed against, tried and convicted of the crime of robbery. On his appeal he challenges the ruling of the trial court admitting his confession into evidence. It is not contended the confession was not made voluntarily, but that it was inadmissible because obtained by interrogation (on the day of arrest) while the defendant was held in custody without having been afforded a preliminary hearing. Prior to making the confession the defendant had been identified in a line-up. He was warned of his rights by an interrogating officer and advised he was entitled to counsel, including public defense counsel, and he affirmatively chose not to have counsel at that time. We hold on authority of Young v. State, Fla. 1962, 140 So.2d 97; Montgomery v. State, Fla.1965, 176 So.2d 331, that admission of the confession, in the circumstances shown in the record, was not error.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was informed against, tried and convicted of the crime of robbery. On his appeal he challenges the ruling of the trial court admitting his confession into evidence. It is not contended the confession was not made voluntarily, but that it was inadmissible because obtained by interrogation (on the day of arrest) while the defendant was held in custody without having been afforded a preliminary hearing. Prior to making the confession the defendant had been identified in a line-up. He was warned of his rights by an interrogating officer and advised he was entitled to counsel, including public defense counsel, and he affirmatively chose not to have counsel at that time. We hold on authority of Young v. State, Fla. 1962, 140 So.2d 97; Montgomery v. State, Fla.1965, 176 So.2d 331, that admission of the confession, in the circumstances shown in the record, was not error.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 So. 2d 41, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sharretts-v-state-fladistctapp-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack