Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Bouknight v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided July 27, 1984No. Nos. AT-126, AT-127Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partErvin, Chief Judge

Appellants-defendants appeal from convictions imposed for possession of heroin and cocaine, and trafficking in the same substances. They entered pleas of nolo contendere to those offenses, reserving their rights to appeal the denial of their motions to suppress the evidence seized, alleging (1) a violation of Section 933.09, Florida Statutes (1981), the knock and announce statute, and (2) a violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution proscribing cruel and unusual punishment, by reason of section 893.135’s requirement of mandatory minimum sentences. I agree with their…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Solem v. HelmSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Benefield v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1964
  3. State v. BenitezSupreme Court of Florida · 1981
  4. Earman v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1972
  5. State v. KellySupreme Court of Florida · 1973

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API