Lee v. State
518 So. 2d 963, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 232, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 256, 1988 WL 4033
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Lee v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1533 →
Opinion
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
Lee v. State, 518 So. 2d 963, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 232, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 256, 1988 WL 4033 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).
518 So. 2d 963 (Lee v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
James v. State
223 So. 2d 52 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1969)
Williams v. State
403 So. 2d 453 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)
Roman v. State
475 So. 2d 1228 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1985)
Kee v. State
504 So. 2d 1365 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)