Lee v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lee v. State

518 So. 2d 963, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 232, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 256, 1988 WL 4033

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 19, 1988

DocketNo. 85-2612

StatusPublished

This text of 518 So. 2d 963 (Lee 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

Lee v. State, 518 So. 2d 963, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 232, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 256, 1988 WL 4033 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We relinquished jurisdiction to the trial court, and, pursuant to our directions, a de novo hearing on the defendant’s motion to suppress was conducted. See Lee v. State, 499 So.2d 66 (Fla.3d DCA 1987). The trial court again denied the motion to suppress, and we affirm. Roman v. State, 475 So.2d 1228 (Fla.1985); Kee v. State, 504 So.2d 1365 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Williams v. State, 403 So.2d 453 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); James v. State, 223 So.2d 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We relinquished jurisdiction to the trial court, and, pursuant to our directions, a de novo hearing on the defendant’s motion to suppress was conducted. See Lee v. State, 499 So.2d 66 (Fla.3d DCA 1987). The trial court again denied the motion to suppress, and we affirm. Roman v. State, 475 So.2d 1228 (Fla.1985); Kee v. State, 504 So.2d 1365 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Williams v. State, 403 So.2d 453 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); James v. State, 223 So.2d 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

518 So. 2d 963, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 232, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 256, 1988 WL 4033, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-state-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack