Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Creekmore v. State

Creekmore v. State

798 So. 2d 776, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 11920, 2001 WL 957393
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedAugust 24, 2001
DocketNo. 2D00-5021
StatusPublished

This text of 798 So. 2d 776 (Creekmore 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
Creekmore v. State, 798 So. 2d 776, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 11920, 2001 WL 957393 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

FULMER, Acting Chief Judge.

Johnny Creekmore appeals his convictions for manufacture and possession of cannabis and possession of drug paraphernalia. Trial counsel failed to preserve for appellate review the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress evidence; therefore, we do not decide the merit of this issue. See Pendarvis v. State, 752 So.2d 75, 76 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).

Affirmed.

GREEN and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.

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

Related

Pendarvis v. State
752 So. 2d 75 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
798 So. 2d 776, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 11920, 2001 WL 957393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/creekmore-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.