Hills v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hills v. State

238 So. 2d 320

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 11, 1970

DocketNo. 70-215

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 238 So. 2d 320 (Hills 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

Hills v. State, 238 So. 2d 320 (Fla. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was informed against, tried, and found guilty of robbery. The proof of guilt was clear and convincing. On this appeal the only substantial question presented is whether the court erred in denying appellant’s motion to suppress the evidence relative to a gun found under the steps leading to his mother’s home, where he also lived.

The evidence is clear and undisputed that the mother gave an informed oral consent to the search. No error appears. See Tomlinson v. State, 129 Fla. 658, 176 So. 543 (1937); Rivers v. State, Fla.1969, 226 So.2d 337.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was informed against, tried, and found guilty of robbery. The proof of guilt was clear and convincing. On this appeal the only substantial question presented is whether the court erred in denying appellant’s motion to suppress the evidence relative to a gun found under the steps leading to his mother’s home, where he also lived.

The evidence is clear and undisputed that the mother gave an informed oral consent to the search. No error appears. See Tomlinson v. State, 129 Fla. 658, 176 So. 543 (1937); Rivers v. State, Fla.1969, 226 So.2d 337.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 So. 2d 320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hills-v-state-fladistctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack