Gonzalez v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gonzalez v. State

614 So. 2d 40, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 2475, 1993 WL 62251

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 9, 1993

DocketNo. 92-2004

StatusPublished

This text of 614 So. 2d 40 (Gonzalez 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

Gonzalez v. State, 614 So. 2d 40, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 2475, 1993 WL 62251 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Roberto Gonzalez, was charged with armed burglary and grand theft. The defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence and statements. The trial court denied the motion. Thereafter, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contende-re reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.

As the State properly concedes, the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress where: a) the stop could not be justified on the basis that the defendant was speeding since there was no evidence to support the trial court’s finding that the defendant was speeding, see State v. Navarro, 464 So.2d 137, 140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); and b) the trial court correctly found that the incident which gave rise to the suspicious persons report was insufficient to justify a stop of the vehicle. See Prokop v. State, 559 So.2d 1258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).

Accordingly, the trial court’s order denying the defendant’s motion to suppress is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to vacate the defendant’s conviction.

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

CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Roberto Gonzalez, was charged with armed burglary and grand theft. The defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence and statements. The trial court denied the motion. Thereafter, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contende-re reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.

As the State properly concedes, the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress where: a) the stop could not be justified on the basis that the defendant was speeding since there was no evidence to support the trial court’s finding that the defendant was speeding, see State v. Navarro, 464 So.2d 137, 140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); and b) the trial court correctly found that the incident which gave rise to the suspicious persons report was insufficient to justify a stop of the vehicle. See Prokop v. State, 559 So.2d 1258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).

Accordingly, the trial court’s order denying the defendant’s motion to suppress is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to vacate the defendant’s conviction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

614 So. 2d 40, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 2475, 1993 WL 62251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzalez-v-state-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack