Cobham v. State

478 So. 2d 456, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2522, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16772
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedNovember 12, 1985
DocketNo. 85-1000
StatusPublished

This text of 478 So. 2d 456 (Cobham 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
Cobham v. State, 478 So. 2d 456, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2522, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16772 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

There is no competent, substantial evidence in the record which demonstrates either that the officer in question complied with the “knock-and-announce” statutes, §§ 901.19(1), 933.09, Fla.Stat. (1983), or that any cognizable exception to the statutory requirements applied. Hence, the order denying the defendant’s motion to suppress was erroneous, State v. Navarro, 464 So.2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (en banc), and the conviction entered upon a nolo plea which preserved the right to appellate review of that ruling is reversed with directions to discharge the defendant.

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

Related

State v. Navarro
464 So. 2d 137 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
478 So. 2d 456, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2522, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16772, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cobham-v-state-fladistctapp-1985.