Espinosa v. State

561 So. 2d 597, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 2158, 1990 WL 37418

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We conclude that there was probable cause to arrest the defendant; that the trial court correctly denied the motion to suppress the defendant’s post-Miranda* statements; and that there was ample proof of the corpus delicti. See Thomas v. State, 531 So.2d 708, 711 (Fla.1988).

Affirmed.

Footnotes

*

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).