Bolden v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bolden v. State

668 So. 2d 1113, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 2041, 1996 WL 93904

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 6, 1996

DocketNo. 95-834

StatusPublished

This text of 668 So. 2d 1113 (Bolden 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

Bolden v. State, 668 So. 2d 1113, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 2041, 1996 WL 93904 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder and kidnapping. He brings this appeal and urges error in the denial of his motion to suppress an evidentiary ruling involving the voluntariness of his confession and alleged improper closing argument. We find that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress under the dictates of Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 96 S.Ct. 321, 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975). This moots consideration of appellant’s second issue and we find the third point not to be well taken. See Schwarck v. State, 568 So.2d 1326 (Fla. 3d [1114]*1114DCA 1990). Therefore, for the reasons stated, the convictions, adjudications and sentences under review, be and they are hereby reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder and kidnapping. He brings this appeal and urges error in the denial of his motion to suppress an evidentiary ruling involving the voluntariness of his confession and alleged improper closing argument. We find that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress under the dictates of Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 96 S.Ct. 321, 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975). This moots consideration of appellant’s second issue and we find the third point not to be well taken. See Schwarck v. State, 568 So.2d 1326 (Fla. 3d [1114]*1114DCA 1990). Therefore, for the reasons stated, the convictions, adjudications and sentences under review, be and they are hereby reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

668 So. 2d 1113, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 2041, 1996 WL 93904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bolden-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack