Thompson v. State

7 Citing cases

  1. Thompson v. State

    761 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 2000)   Cited 196 times
    Holding that under the mailbox rule, the date that a motion is placed into the hands of prison officials for filing is the date that the motion is considered filed

    PER CURIAM. Petitioner filed a petition for review asserting that the decision in Thompson v. State, 731 So.2d 819 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), expressly construes a provision of the state or federal constitution. See Art. V. § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

  2. Thompson v. Sec. Dept. of Corr

    595 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2010)   Cited 25 times
    Holding that state habeas petitions dismissed under Baker, but that appeared to meet all state procedural and filing requirements on their face, were "properly filed" under § 2244(d), and therefore tolled the limitations period

    In 1998, a jury in Florida's Eighteenth Judicial Circuit convicted Thompson of two counts of sexual battery upon a minor and one count of lewd, lascivious, or indecent act upon a child. His convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. See Thompson v. State, 731 So.2d 819 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1999). Thompson was subsequently re-sentenced on 27 April 2001, from which he did not appeal.

  3. Thompson v. Gutierrez

    Case No: 6:16-cv-1996-Orl-40TBS (M.D. Fla. Mar. 27, 2017)

    On April 30, 1999, the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal (Antoon writing for the court), affirmed the evidentiary ruling of the circuit court that admitted the recording of the telephone call. Thompson v. State, 731 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). The state appellate court concluded that the recording of the telephone conversation between the defendant and victim was admissible and the question of whether Illinois law governed admissibility was a moot point:

  4. Brugmann v. State

    117 So. 3d 39 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 5 times
    Identifying eight-factor test for determining reasonableness of expectation of privacy, including illegal conduct, intent, and content of communication, upon collecting cases

    Morales, 513 So.2d at 697 (Pearson, J., concurring); see also United States v. Simels, 654 F.3d 161, 169 (2d Cir.2011) (holding that recording of attorney advising his client, which was made in violation of federal law, may be used to impeach a witness, and noting that all federal circuits that have considered the issue have held that unlawfully obtained wiretap evidence may be used for impeachment in a criminal case”) (emphasis added). Similarly, the Fifth District in Thompson v. State, 731 So.2d 819, 820–21 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), the Fourth District in State v. Stout, 693 So.2d 657, 658–59 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), and this Court in Franco v. State, 376 So.2d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), have held that a recorded conversation is admissible under Chapter 934 where the purpose of the recording was to obtain an admission from the defendant that he was either part of a criminal act itself or to obtain an admission of a criminal act. Thus, a review of the Rappaport and Hirsch tapes and a consideration of the relevant circumstances were required to determine if the tapes were admissible as substantive evidence.

  5. Clay v. State

    31 So. 3d 939 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

    PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. Thompson v. State, 731 So.2d 819 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), rev. denied, 773 So.2d 58 (Fla. 2000) (table); see also State v. McCormick, 719 So.2d 1220, 1222 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (distinguishing State v. Mozo, 655 So.2d 1115 (Fla. 1995), and holding that "the `interception' of a cellular call occurs both at the location of the tapped telephone and at the site where law enforcement authorities hear and record the call"), rev. denied sub nom, Mitchell v. State, 732 So.2d 327 (Fla. 1999) (table). HAWKES, C.J., WETHERELL and ROWE, JJ., concur.

  6. Atkins v. State

    930 So. 2d 678 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 3 times

    Other cases have held that where the purpose of the recording was to obtain an admission from the defendant, a recorded conversation with the defendant also complies with the statute. See Thompson v. State, 731 So.2d 819 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); State v. Stout, 693 So.2d 657 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Franco v. State, 376 So.2d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). We have not found a single case in which any court has approved the admission of a recorded conversation under section 934.03(2)(c), or pursuant to other counterparts around the country, which did not involve a conversation with the defendant being tried and was either part of a criminal act itself or an admission of a criminal act.

  7. Thompson v. State

    904 So. 2d 493 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

    He appealed, and this court affirmed in a written opinion which held that the recording of the telephone conversation between Thompson and the victim was admissible. Thompson v. State, 731 So.2d 819 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), review denied, 773 So.2d 58 (Fla. 2000). Eventually, because we found Thompson's arguments and numerous post-conviction filings to be without merit, we issued a show cause order pursuant to State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla. 1999) (court can restrict future pro se pleadings if it first provides a pro se litigant notice and an opportunity to respond).