Lindsey v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lindsey v. State

523 So. 2d 180, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 865, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1459, 1988 WL 31713

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 6, 1988

DocketNo. BS-421

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 523 So. 2d 180 (Lindsey 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

Lindsey v. State, 523 So. 2d 180, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 865, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1459, 1988 WL 31713 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on appeal of appellant’s motion to suppress evidence and subsequent conviction for possession of cocaine. Originally, this court was not supplied with a complete record of the evidence before the trial court at the suppression hearing. Appellant’s main brief purported to summarize testimony of officers concerning appellant’s activities, described as “shaking hands,” during the officers’ surveillance of appellant. The State did not dispute that summary and description of the evidence. After this court ordered the depositions submitted at the suppression hearing, however, we discovered that one of the surveilling officers testified that she definitely saw appellant “hand passing” something to numerous persons. This witness specifically testified that appellant was not just shaking hands. There was also testimony that the confidential informer told the officers exactly where on appellant’s person the cocaine would be found. Thus, consideration of the entire record before the trial court at the suppression hearing shows that the court did not err in denying the motion. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction.

BOOTH, WIGGINTON and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on appeal of appellant’s motion to suppress evidence and subsequent conviction for possession of cocaine. Originally, this court was not supplied with a complete record of the evidence before the trial court at the suppression hearing. Appellant’s main brief purported to summarize testimony of officers concerning appellant’s activities, described as “shaking hands,” during the officers’ surveillance of appellant. The State did not dispute that summary and description of the evidence. After this court ordered the depositions submitted at the suppression hearing, however, we discovered that one of the surveilling officers testified that she definitely saw appellant “hand passing” something to numerous persons. This witness specifically testified that appellant was not just shaking hands. There was also testimony that the confidential informer told the officers exactly where on appellant’s person the cocaine would be found. Thus, consideration of the entire record before the trial court at the suppression hearing shows that the court did not err in denying the motion. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction.

BOOTH, WIGGINTON and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

523 So. 2d 180, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 865, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1459, 1988 WL 31713, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lindsey-v-state-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack