M.J. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

M.J. v. State

776 So. 2d 341, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 430, 2001 WL 45465

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 22, 2001

DocketNo. 1D99-2361

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 776 So. 2d 341 (M.J. 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

M.J. v. State, 776 So. 2d 341, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 430, 2001 WL 45465 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

M.J. appeals an order denying his motion to suppress evidence seized and statements made following his arrest for trespass. On review, the trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress comes to us clothed with a presumption of correctness. See San Martin v. State, 717 So.2d 462, 469 (Fla.1998). Although the evidence ad[342]*342duced at the suppression hearing was certainly in conflict as to whether appellant had permission to be on the premises of the housing complex where he was arrested, the reviewing court is bound by the trial court’s findings of fact on this matter, made after the suppression hearing, unless the findings are clearly erroneous. See State v. Setzler, 667 So.2d 343, 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Our review of the record establishes that competent and substantial evidence supports the trial court’s findings and that the trial court correctly applied the law to the facts. See Warren v. State, 701 So.2d 404, 405 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Accordingly, we AFFIRM.

ERVIN, VAN NORTWICK and BROWNING, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM

M.J. appeals an order denying his motion to suppress evidence seized and statements made following his arrest for trespass. On review, the trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress comes to us clothed with a presumption of correctness. See San Martin v. State, 717 So.2d 462, 469 (Fla.1998). Although the evidence ad[342]*342duced at the suppression hearing was certainly in conflict as to whether appellant had permission to be on the premises of the housing complex where he was arrested, the reviewing court is bound by the trial court’s findings of fact on this matter, made after the suppression hearing, unless the findings are clearly erroneous. See State v. Setzler, 667 So.2d 343, 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Our review of the record establishes that competent and substantial evidence supports the trial court’s findings and that the trial court correctly applied the law to the facts. See Warren v. State, 701 So.2d 404, 405 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Accordingly, we AFFIRM.

ERVIN, VAN NORTWICK and BROWNING, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

776 So. 2d 341, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 430, 2001 WL 45465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mj-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack