Bilinski v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bilinski v. State

463 So. 2d 424, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 352, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12253

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 5, 1985

DocketNo. 83-748

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 463 So. 2d 424 (Bilinski 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

Bilinski v. State, 463 So. 2d 424, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 352, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12253 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The final judgments of conviction and sentences under review are affirmed. The trial court committed no error, as asserted, in denying the defendants’ respective motions to suppress the eyewitness identification in this case. The defendants were not unlawfully in custody when they were identified by the eyewitness at a prompt on-the-scene police show-up; nor was the show-up procedure impermissibly suggestive so as to give rise to a likelihood of irreparable misidentification. See State v. Vamedoe, 443 So.2d 201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Cross v. State, 432 So.2d 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Cromartie, 419 So.2d 757 (Fla. 1st DCA), ■pet. for review dismissed, 422 So.2d 842 (Fla.1982).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The final judgments of conviction and sentences under review are affirmed. The trial court committed no error, as asserted, in denying the defendants’ respective motions to suppress the eyewitness identification in this case. The defendants were not unlawfully in custody when they were identified by the eyewitness at a prompt on-the-scene police show-up; nor was the show-up procedure impermissibly suggestive so as to give rise to a likelihood of irreparable misidentification. See State v. Vamedoe, 443 So.2d 201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Cross v. State, 432 So.2d 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Cromartie, 419 So.2d 757 (Fla. 1st DCA), ■pet. for review dismissed, 422 So.2d 842 (Fla.1982).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

463 So. 2d 424, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 352, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bilinski-v-state-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack