Mead v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mead v. State

381 So. 2d 743, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16324

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 1, 1980

DocketNo. 79-1411

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 381 So. 2d 743 (Mead 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

Mead v. State, 381 So. 2d 743, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16324 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of conviction and sentence under review is affirmed upon a holding that: (a) the motions to suppress evidence and statements filed by the de- ■ fendant were properly denied in the trial court as the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant Dixon v. State, 343 So.2d 1345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Berry v. State, 316 So.2d 72 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), and probable cause to search the defendant’s vehicle; Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925), adopted by § 933.19, Fla.Stat. (1979); McGowan v. State, 351 So.2d 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), based on Trooper B. A. Adriance’s testimony that he smelled a strong odor of marijuana emanating from the defendant’s vehicle prior to stopping the vehicle, arresting the defendant driver and searching the said vehicle; and (b) the defendant failed to preserve for appellate review the propriety of an alleged improper argument made by the prosecuting attorney in final argument at the trial of this cause because defense counsel did not, as required by law, make a motion for mistrial based on the alleged inflammatory argument after counsel’s objection thereto had been overruled by the trial court. Clark v. State, 363 So.2d 331, 335 (Fla.1978); see also State v. Cumbie, 380 So.2d 1031 (Fla.1980).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of conviction and sentence under review is affirmed upon a holding that: (a) the motions to suppress evidence and statements filed by the de- ■ fendant were properly denied in the trial court as the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant Dixon v. State, 343 So.2d 1345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Berry v. State, 316 So.2d 72 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), and probable cause to search the defendant’s vehicle; Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925), adopted by § 933.19, Fla.Stat. (1979); McGowan v. State, 351 So.2d 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), based on Trooper B. A. Adriance’s testimony that he smelled a strong odor of marijuana emanating from the defendant’s vehicle prior to stopping the vehicle, arresting the defendant driver and searching the said vehicle; and (b) the defendant failed to preserve for appellate review the propriety of an alleged improper argument made by the prosecuting attorney in final argument at the trial of this cause because defense counsel did not, as required by law, make a motion for mistrial based on the alleged inflammatory argument after counsel’s objection thereto had been overruled by the trial court. Clark v. State, 363 So.2d 331, 335 (Fla.1978); see also State v. Cumbie, 380 So.2d 1031 (Fla.1980).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

381 So. 2d 743, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mead-v-state-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack