Mikell v. State
699 So. 2d 843, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 11116, 1997 WL 600300
Opinion
We affirm defendant’s conviction. Based on the record before the trial court, we hold that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to suppress. See Escobar v. State, 699 So.2d 984 (Fla.1997); Savage v. State, 588 So.2d 975 (Fla.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 943, 112 S.Ct. 1493, 117 L.Ed.2d 634 (1992); McNamara v. State, 357 So.2d 410 (Fla.1978). The “trial court’s decision was based on competent substantial evi-[844] denee.” Escobar v. State, 699 So.2d 988, 992-93 (Fla.1997).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Mikell v. State, 699 So. 2d 843, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 11116, 1997 WL 600300 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).
699 So. 2d 843 (Mikell v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
McNamara v. State
357 So. 2d 410 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1978)
Escobar v. State
699 So. 2d 988 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1997)
Escobar v. State
699 So. 2d 984 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1997)
Savage v. State
588 So. 2d 975 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1991)