State v. Maviglia

Miami-Dade County Circuit Court

State v. Maviglia

6 Fla. Supp. 92

CourtCircuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida, Miami-Dade County

DecidedOctober 28, 1954

StatusPublished

This text of 6 Fla. Supp. 92 (State v. Maviglia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida, Miami-Dade County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Maviglia, 6 Fla. Supp. 92 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

VINCENT C. GIBLIN, Circuit Judge.

The appellant was convicted by a jury of the crime of bookmaking as defined in section 849.25, Florida Statutes 1953. The evidence produced by the state overwhelmingly supported the charge preferred against the appellant in the information. No evidence was submitted by him.

The appellant contends that the court below erred in admitting evidence seized by law enforcement officers in the building in which he was arrested. The contention is without merit. It is unnecessary to determine whether the entry and search were made pursuant to [93]*93a valid search warrant. It was not shown (in fact the appellant denied) that he was the owner, lessee or lawful occupant of the building. He was in no position to raise the question whether there had been an unlawful search and seizure. United States v. DeVasto (C.C.A. 2d), 52 Fed. 2d 26 (certiorari denied, 284 U.S; 678, 76 L.ed. 573, 52 S. Ct. 138); Church v. State (Fla.), 9 So. 2d 164; Mixon v. State (Fla.), 54 So. 2d 190. The right to immunity from unreasonable searches and seizures is personal and can be asserted only by those whose rights are violated.

The appellant was accorded a fair trial, the evidence of his guilt was conclusive and the record discloses no prejudicial error committed by the trial judge. The judgment and sentence are affirmed.

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

VINCENT C. GIBLIN, Circuit Judge.

The appellant was convicted by a jury of the crime of bookmaking as defined in section 849.25, Florida Statutes 1953. The evidence produced by the state overwhelmingly supported the charge preferred against the appellant in the information. No evidence was submitted by him.

The appellant contends that the court below erred in admitting evidence seized by law enforcement officers in the building in which he was arrested. The contention is without merit. It is unnecessary to determine whether the entry and search were made pursuant to [93]*93a valid search warrant. It was not shown (in fact the appellant denied) that he was the owner, lessee or lawful occupant of the building. He was in no position to raise the question whether there had been an unlawful search and seizure. United States v. DeVasto (C.C.A. 2d), 52 Fed. 2d 26 (certiorari denied, 284 U.S; 678, 76 L.ed. 573, 52 S. Ct. 138); Church v. State (Fla.), 9 So. 2d 164; Mixon v. State (Fla.), 54 So. 2d 190. The right to immunity from unreasonable searches and seizures is personal and can be asserted only by those whose rights are violated.

The appellant was accorded a fair trial, the evidence of his guilt was conclusive and the record discloses no prejudicial error committed by the trial judge. The judgment and sentence are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Fla. Supp. 92, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-maviglia-flacirct11mia-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack