Smart v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Smart v. State

208 So. 2d 866, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5846

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 9, 1968

DocketNo. 67-357

StatusPublished

This text of 208 So. 2d 866 (Smart 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

Smart v. State, 208 So. 2d 866, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5846 (Fla. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was informed against, tried before the court and found and adjudged guilty of robbery and sentenced to confinement for a period of five years. The contention presented on his appeal is that the court committed reversible error in denying his motion to strike the testimony of the victim, relating to identity of the defendant, because he was picked by the victim out of a line-up at which he was not advised of a right to have counsel present, and was without counsel.

The defendant relies on United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed. 2d 1149, which espoused the proposition he contends for. The Wade case was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 12, 1967, some five months after the trial in this case, which was held on January 19, 1967. The Supreme Court of the United States held that the Wade case operated prospectively and was not given retroactive application. Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199. See also Marden v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 638; Bradley v. State, Fla.App.1968, 206 So.2d 657, 660. Therefore, the challenged ruling of the trial court in this court in this case 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 before the court and found and adjudged guilty of robbery and sentenced to confinement for a period of five years. The contention presented on his appeal is that the court committed reversible error in denying his motion to strike the testimony of the victim, relating to identity of the defendant, because he was picked by the victim out of a line-up at which he was not advised of a right to have counsel present, and was without counsel.

The defendant relies on United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed. 2d 1149, which espoused the proposition he contends for. The Wade case was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 12, 1967, some five months after the trial in this case, which was held on January 19, 1967. The Supreme Court of the United States held that the Wade case operated prospectively and was not given retroactive application. Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199. See also Marden v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 638; Bradley v. State, Fla.App.1968, 206 So.2d 657, 660. Therefore, the challenged ruling of the trial court in this court in this case was not error.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 So. 2d 866, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smart-v-state-fladistctapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack