Ewing v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ewing v. State

461 So. 2d 966, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2453, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 16349

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 21, 1984·No. No. 84-444·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted and sentenced for trafficking in cocaine and possession of a controlled substance. He raises three grounds on appeal, only one of which merits comment. Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search of an automobile. We have previously rejected this argument in Hendrix v. State, 456 So.2d 494 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), a case [967]*967involving the same automobile and evidence as in this case. We have examined the other grounds raised by defendant and find them to be without merit.

Accordingly, we affirm defendant’s convictions and sentences.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and OTT and LEHAN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted and sentenced for trafficking in cocaine and possession of a controlled substance. He raises three grounds on appeal, only one of which merits comment. Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search of an automobile. We have previously rejected this argument in Hendrix v. State, 456 So.2d 494 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), a case [967]*967involving the same automobile and evidence as in this case. We have examined the other grounds raised by defendant and find them to be without merit.

Accordingly, we affirm defendant’s convictions and sentences.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and OTT and LEHAN, JJ., concur.

Ewing v. State, 461 So. 2d 966, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2453, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 16349 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

461 So. 2d 966 (Ewing v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related