Arnold v. State

586 So. 2d 487, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 10223, 1991 WL 192036
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Arnold v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 566 So. 2d 37
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 26, 1991·No. No. 90-1103·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Ivory Arnold challenges his convictions and sentences for armed robbery with a deadly weapon, two counts of aggravated assault without a firearm, and two counts of battery. Appellant asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from the room where he had been staying. We find that the trial judge could have reasonably found that a valid consent to search the room was given by the owner of the house who had joint control of the room.

Affirmed. See Preston v. State, 444 So.2d 939 (Fla.1984), sentence vacated by 564 So.2d 120 (Fla.1990); Muehleman v. State, 503 So.2d 310 (Fla.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 882, 108 S.Ct. 39, 98 L.Ed.2d 170 (1987).

SHIVERS and WOLF, JJ., and CAWTHON, Senior Judge, concur.

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

Arnold v. State, 586 So. 2d 487, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 10223, 1991 WL 192036 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

586 So. 2d 487 (Arnold v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Muehleman v. Florida
484 U.S. 882 (Supreme Court, 1987)
Preston v. State
444 So. 2d 939 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1984)
Preston v. State
564 So. 2d 120 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1990)
Muehleman v. State
503 So. 2d 310 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1987)