Martinez v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Martinez v. State

425 So. 2d 181, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18516

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 18, 1983

DocketNo. 80-1742

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 425 So. 2d 181 (Martinez 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

Martinez v. State, 425 So. 2d 181, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18516 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

We relinquished jurisdiction to the trial court for the purpose of clarifying the agreement between the parties as to dispos-itiveness. See Martinez v. State, 420 So.2d 637 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The agreement has now been clarified to reflect that the defendant’s nolo contendere plea was entered with the understanding that the State would not further prosecute if both the defendant’s statement at the scene of the accident and his later statement at the sta-tionhouse were suppressed. Because it appears that the defendant was sufficiently alerted to the fact that the accident report phase of the investigation had ended when, after his arrest for manslaughter and vehicular homicide and after being given Miranda warnings, he gave the statement at the stationhouse, we conclude that his motion to suppress such statement was properly denied and affirm the judgments of conviction.

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 for the purpose of clarifying the agreement between the parties as to dispos-itiveness. See Martinez v. State, 420 So.2d 637 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The agreement has now been clarified to reflect that the defendant’s nolo contendere plea was entered with the understanding that the State would not further prosecute if both the defendant’s statement at the scene of the accident and his later statement at the sta-tionhouse were suppressed. Because it appears that the defendant was sufficiently alerted to the fact that the accident report phase of the investigation had ended when, after his arrest for manslaughter and vehicular homicide and after being given Miranda warnings, he gave the statement at the stationhouse, we conclude that his motion to suppress such statement was properly denied and affirm the judgments of conviction.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

425 So. 2d 181, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martinez-v-state-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack