Aldama v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Aldama v. State

400 So. 2d 34, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19853

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 19, 1981·No. No. 80-972·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the judgments of conviction upon a holding that (1) notwithstanding the defendants’ claim that the witnesses called by the State at the suppression hearing were in hopeless conflict and were inherently incredible, no error is shown where the trial court’s findings of fact, from which flowed the unassailed and unassailable conclusion of law that the search was valid, were supported by substantial competent evidence, Boykin v. State, 309 So.2d 211 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); and (2) the defendants’ motion to dismiss the information because signed by an Assistant State Attorney was properly denied, see State v. Rivero, 400 So.2d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the judgments of conviction upon a holding that (1) notwithstanding the defendants’ claim that the witnesses called by the State at the suppression hearing were in hopeless conflict and were inherently incredible, no error is shown where the trial court’s findings of fact, from which flowed the unassailed and unassailable conclusion of law that the search was valid, were supported by substantial competent evidence, Boykin v. State, 309 So.2d 211 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); and (2) the defendants’ motion to dismiss the information because signed by an Assistant State Attorney was properly denied, see State v. Rivero, 400 So.2d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

Affirmed.

Aldama v. State, 400 So. 2d 34, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19853 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

400 So. 2d 34 (Aldama v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related