Amparo v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Amparo v. State

818 So. 2d 565, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 2332, 2002 WL 340961

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 6, 2002·No. No. 2D01-615·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

BLUE, Chief Judge.

Gabriel Amparo appeals his conviction for armed robbery. We reject his arguments but point out that although the trial court erroneously denied Mr. Amparo’s motion to suppress, the error was harmless. Accordingly, we affirm.

Mr. Amparo correctly argues that the trial court erroneously denied his motion to suppress based on an unlawful protective sweep of the house. See Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 110 S.Ct. 1093, 108 L.Ed.2d 276 (1990). Additionally, the State failed to establish that the subsequently given consent to search the house was voluntary. See Findley v. State, 771 So.2d 1235 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). However, the ruling on the motion to suppress the evidence found in the house was not dis-positive of Mr. Amparo’s criminal charge and is subject to a harmless error analysis. We conclude that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986).

Affirmed.

ALTENBERND and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.

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

BLUE, Chief Judge.

Gabriel Amparo appeals his conviction for armed robbery. We reject his arguments but point out that although the trial court erroneously denied Mr. Amparo’s motion to suppress, the error was harmless. Accordingly, we affirm.

Mr. Amparo correctly argues that the trial court erroneously denied his motion to suppress based on an unlawful protective sweep of the house. See Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 110 S.Ct. 1093, 108 L.Ed.2d 276 (1990). Additionally, the State failed to establish that the subsequently given consent to search the house was voluntary. See Findley v. State, 771 So.2d 1235 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). However, the ruling on the motion to suppress the evidence found in the house was not dis-positive of Mr. Amparo’s criminal charge and is subject to a harmless error analysis. We conclude that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986).

Affirmed.

ALTENBERND and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.

Amparo v. State, 818 So. 2d 565, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 2332, 2002 WL 340961 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

818 So. 2d 565 (Amparo v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related