Gomez v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gomez v. State

402 So. 2d 1239, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20794

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 4, 1981

DocketNos. 80-1328, 80-1329

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 402 So. 2d 1239 (Gomez 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

Gomez v. State, 402 So. 2d 1239, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20794 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The judgments of conviction and sentences under review are affirmed upon a holding that: (a) the motion to suppress the evidence was properly denied by the trial court as the subject marijuana was observed by a state agent in “open view” prior to any official intrusion upon the defendant’s privacy, which “open view” gave the state agent probable cause to search the defendants’ boat without a search warrant and to seize the marijuana thereon, see e. g., Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925), adopted by § 933.19, Fla.Stat. (1979); Ensor v. State, 403 So.2d 349 (Fla.1981); and (b) the motion to dismiss the information for lack of jurisdiction over the offense was properly denied by the trial court because the ground urged in support thereof could only be urged on a sworn motion to dismiss under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(c)(4) or on a motion for judgment of acquittal at trial.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The judgments of conviction and sentences under review are affirmed upon a holding that: (a) the motion to suppress the evidence was properly denied by the trial court as the subject marijuana was observed by a state agent in “open view” prior to any official intrusion upon the defendant’s privacy, which “open view” gave the state agent probable cause to search the defendants’ boat without a search warrant and to seize the marijuana thereon, see e. g., Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925), adopted by § 933.19, Fla.Stat. (1979); Ensor v. State, 403 So.2d 349 (Fla.1981); and (b) the motion to dismiss the information for lack of jurisdiction over the offense was properly denied by the trial court because the ground urged in support thereof could only be urged on a sworn motion to dismiss under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(c)(4) or on a motion for judgment of acquittal at trial.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

402 So. 2d 1239, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gomez-v-state-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack