Amparo v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Amparo v. State

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

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 6, 2002

DocketNo. 2D01-615

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 818 So. 2d 565 (Amparo v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

818 So. 2d 565, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 2332, 2002 WL 340961, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amparo-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack