Atkinson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Atkinson v. State

537 So. 2d 705, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 308, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 494, 1989 WL 6461

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 1, 1989

DocketNo. 88-110

StatusPublished

This text of 537 So. 2d 705 (Atkinson 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

Atkinson v. State, 537 So. 2d 705, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 308, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 494, 1989 WL 6461 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

ZEHMER, Judge.

Willie Atkinson appeals his conviction for possession of cocaine in violation of section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1987). He entered a plea of nolo contendere, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress the seized cocaine that was the basis for his conviction. The record contains no evidence of corroboration of the anonymous tip received by the police, nor did the officers involved testify to observing any criminal act committed by the defendant. The record does not contain any evidence to justify an investigatory stop. Accordingly, we find it was error for the trial court to deny appellant’s motion to suppress, reverse the conviction, and remand with directions to discharge the defendant.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

SHIVERS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.

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

ZEHMER, Judge.

Willie Atkinson appeals his conviction for possession of cocaine in violation of section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1987). He entered a plea of nolo contendere, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress the seized cocaine that was the basis for his conviction. The record contains no evidence of corroboration of the anonymous tip received by the police, nor did the officers involved testify to observing any criminal act committed by the defendant. The record does not contain any evidence to justify an investigatory stop. Accordingly, we find it was error for the trial court to deny appellant’s motion to suppress, reverse the conviction, and remand with directions to discharge the defendant.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

SHIVERS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

537 So. 2d 705, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 308, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 494, 1989 WL 6461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atkinson-v-state-fladistctapp-1989.