H.C.W. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

H.C.W. v. State

817 So. 2d 926, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 6151, 2002 WL 1378841

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 8, 2002

DocketNo. 2D01-997

StatusPublished

This text of 817 So. 2d 926 (H.C.W. 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

H.C.W. v. State, 817 So. 2d 926, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 6151, 2002 WL 1378841 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

SALCINES, Judge.

H.C.W. appeals the order of the juvenile division of the circuit court which denied his dispositive motion to suppress cocaine and cannabis found on his person during a search. At the hearing on the motion, the court noted that there had been a showing that H.C.W. consented to the search; however, the court based its decision to deny the motion on the fact that the Tampa police officer had probable cause to arrest H.C.W. at the time of the search. The court erred when it determined that the officer had probable cause to arrest, but we nonetheless affirm the decision to deny the motion because the consent to search given by H.C.W. was valid. See Belvin v. State, 585 So.2d 1103, 1105 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (holding affirmance is required when the ruling is correct, albeit for the wrong reasons).

Affirmed.

BLUE, C.J., and CASANUEVA, J., concur.

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

SALCINES, Judge.

H.C.W. appeals the order of the juvenile division of the circuit court which denied his dispositive motion to suppress cocaine and cannabis found on his person during a search. At the hearing on the motion, the court noted that there had been a showing that H.C.W. consented to the search; however, the court based its decision to deny the motion on the fact that the Tampa police officer had probable cause to arrest H.C.W. at the time of the search. The court erred when it determined that the officer had probable cause to arrest, but we nonetheless affirm the decision to deny the motion because the consent to search given by H.C.W. was valid. See Belvin v. State, 585 So.2d 1103, 1105 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (holding affirmance is required when the ruling is correct, albeit for the wrong reasons).

Affirmed.

BLUE, C.J., and CASANUEVA, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

817 So. 2d 926, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 6151, 2002 WL 1378841, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hcw-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack