Case Name: Steve STANFORD, Ray C. Fillyaw, Robert G. Rowell, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1959-02-25
Citations: 110 So. 2d 1
Docket Number: 
Parties: Steve STANFORD, Ray C. Fillyaw, Robert G. Rowell, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: THOMAS, THORNAL and O’CON-NELL, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 110
Pages: 1–6

Head Matter:
Steve STANFORD, Ray C. Fillyaw, Robert G. Rowell, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Feb. 25, 1959.
Rehearing Denied April 16, 1959.
William Victor Gruman, Tampa, for appellants.
Richard w_ Ervin> Atty. Gen.. and 0dis M. Henderson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Opinion:
DREW, Justice.
The three appellants and one Cullen Horace.- Williams were duly informed against, tried and convicted by a jury of armed robbery.
Although various errors are assigned, only one question is presented for our consideration. That question is whether the trial judge abused his discretion when he determined that the confessions of these three defendants introduced in evidence were freely and voluntarily made. No other question is presented and an assiduous study of the record fails to disclose any fundamental error of which we could take cognizance even though not assigned.
The trial judge heard extensive evidence out of the presence of the jury concerning the issue of whether the confessions were freely and voluntarily made; he reached the conclusion that they were. The evidence, as usual in these cases, is conflicting in some respects but, when considered as a whole and weighed in the light of human experience, we think there was ample evidence to support the determination of the trial court. This being so, there is no basis upon which this appellate court may properly overturn his decision. Moreover, the jury trying these young men were not bound by the confessions if they chose to believe that these young men were innocent of the crime for which they were being tried. The jury had the advantage of observing the various witnesses in this case. They concluded that the defendants were guilty of armed robbery.
The fact that a small amount of money was involved is of no importance.
The fact that whatever property the victim had upon him was taken from him forcibly by the use of a dangerous weapon is the crime which is condemned by society.
The length of the sentences imposed in these cases on these young men sounds harsh when viewed in the cold light of this record, but such sentences are less than the maximum fixed by law and this Court has no power to reduce or modify them even if error as to this had been properly assigned or the question had been argued before us, neither of which was done.
This Court takes judicial knowledge of the fact that all of these- young men are within the age group that commits a very large percentage of the crimes in this nation. Under the statutes of this state the trial judges.are granted a wide discretion as to the penalty to be inflicted on a defendant and are expressly authorized on the sugg-estion of either party to make an independent investigation or inqtiiry into circumstances, after the jury has returned its verdict, to determine the extent of the sentence to be imposed. The result of this investigation, if such were made, is not in tins record (nor has it any place here) so it would be somewhat presumptuous for us, even if we desired to do so in the state of this record, to criticize the terms of the sentences. Moreover, if the sentences are harsh and unjust, relief may be obtained upon proper-showing before the parole authorities of this state.
The judgments and sentences as to these appellants are hereby affirmed.
THOMAS, THORNAL and O'CON-NELL, JJ., concur.
TERRELL, C. J., and HOBSON and ROBERTS, JJ., dissent.
. At the time of trial Williams (who did not appeal) was 17 years old. His sentence was S years. Stanford and Rowell, ages 17 and 18 respectively, were sentenced to 6 years. Fillyaw was 18 years old and was sentenced to 10 years.
. Florida Appellate Rules, rule 8.7 (i), 31 F.S.A.; 2 Fla.Juris., Appeals, Sec. 130; cases cited Encylopedie Digest of Florida Reports (Appeal & Error) para. 76.
. While the confessions of the boys fix the amount at ?5, the victim testified it was 316 to 320 and his poeketbook and all lixs personal things therein.
. In an unbroken line of decisions since Brown v. State, 152 Fla. 853, 13 So.2d 458, we have adhered to the principle that if a trial judge imposes a sentence that is within the limits defined by statute, the only relief is before the parole authorities.
. Section 921.13, F.S.A.