Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Johnnie Lee Miller, Petitioner-appellant, v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections,state of Florida, Respondent-appellee
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. - 485 F.2d 185
Oct. 17, 1973
J. Michael Hayes, Tampa, Fla. (Court-appointed), for petitioner-appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Fla., Baya Harrison, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, Fla., for respondent-appellee.
Before WISDOM, AINSWORTH and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Miller, a Florida state prisoner, appeals from the denial of habeas corpus after an evidentiary hearing. He attacks his state court conviction and sentence for second degree murder on two grounds: (1) illegal search and seizure of a weapon introduced at his trial; (2) denial of his constitutional right to full and adequate cross-examination. We affirm.
The evidence fully supported the district court's finding of probable cause to arrest the defendant. The district court also correctly held that the search and seizure of the weapon which occurred at about the same time as defendant's arrest was therefore lawful, being incidental to the arrest. See United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 70 S.Ct. 430, 94 L.Ed. 653 (1950); Lovelace v. United States, 5 Cir. 1966, 357 F.2d 306, 310; Holt v. Simpson, 7 Cir. 1965, 340 F.2d 853.
Appellant's second ground relates to unsuccessful attempts to cross-examine prosecution witnesses concerning an alleged statement of appellant made at or near the time of his arrest. Our review of the circumstances does not convince us that the matter complained of rises to constitutional proportions even if the state trial court erroneously restricted cross-examination. See Summerville v. Cook, 5 Cir. 1971, 438 F.2d 1196.
Affirmed.