Stanley v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stanley v. State

124 So. 2d 743

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 28, 1960

DocketNo. 59-762

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 124 So. 2d 743 (Stanley 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

Stanley v. State, 124 So. 2d 743 (Fla. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was indicted, tried and convicted of statutory rape of a child under ten years of age. Upon a jury recommendation of mercy, the appellant was sentenced to 99 years. He appeals a judgment of conviction and sentence.

The appellant urges a reversal upon three grounds, i. e., (1) that his confession should have been suppressed because of the failure of the arresting officer to take him without delay before a committing magistrate; (2) that the jury was not fully instructed because the trial judge failed to define the offense of assault with intent to commit rape, an offense included within that charged in the indictment; and (3) that the trial judge, through the bailiff, instructed the jury outside the presence of the appellant.

Each of the appellant’s contentions has been carefully considered and found to be without merit. It would serve no useful purpose, except to lengthen this opinion, to delineate the details of the offense or to discuss the reasons why this court feels that the testimony and evidence sustain the conviction and that the claimed errors are insufficient to warrant a reversal.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence is affirmed.

Affirmed.

HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was indicted, tried and convicted of statutory rape of a child under ten years of age. Upon a jury recommendation of mercy, the appellant was sentenced to 99 years. He appeals a judgment of conviction and sentence.

The appellant urges a reversal upon three grounds, i. e., (1) that his confession should have been suppressed because of the failure of the arresting officer to take him without delay before a committing magistrate; (2) that the jury was not fully instructed because the trial judge failed to define the offense of assault with intent to commit rape, an offense included within that charged in the indictment; and (3) that the trial judge, through the bailiff, instructed the jury outside the presence of the appellant.

Each of the appellant’s contentions has been carefully considered and found to be without merit. It would serve no useful purpose, except to lengthen this opinion, to delineate the details of the offense or to discuss the reasons why this court feels that the testimony and evidence sustain the conviction and that the claimed errors are insufficient to warrant a reversal.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence is affirmed.

Affirmed.

HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 So. 2d 743, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanley-v-state-fladistctapp-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack