M.S. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

M.S. v. State

513 So. 2d 231, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2343, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12205

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 29, 1987

DocketNo. 86-2224

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 513 So. 2d 231 (M.S. 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.S. v. State, 513 So. 2d 231, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2343, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12205 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant M.S., a minor, challenges an adjudication of delinquency¹ following a plea of nolo contendere specifically reserving for appellate review the denial of his motion to suppress. We affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion. When he abandoned the paper bag, appellant relinquished any legitimate expectation of privacy in the property. Thus, the search of the bag did not violate his fourth amendment rights. See United States v. Collis, 766 F.2d 219 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851, 106 S.Ct. 150, 88 L.Ed.2d 124 (1985); United States v. Jones, 707 F.2d 1169 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 859, 104 S.Ct. 184, 78 L.Ed.2d 163 (1983); State v. Oliver, 368 So.2d 1331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. dismissed, 383 So.2d 1200 (Fla.1980). The state concedes, however, that the trial court erred in adjudicating appellant delinquent based on the separate findings that appellant possessed cocaine and possessed cocaine with the intent to sell. Under double jeopardy principles, both adjudications cannot stand; the adjudication of delinquency for the lesser offense of simple possession must be vacated. C.P. v. State, 505 So.2d 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant M.S., a minor, challenges an adjudication of delinquency¹ following a plea of nolo contendere specifically reserving for appellate review the denial of his motion to suppress. We affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion. When he abandoned the paper bag, appellant relinquished any legitimate expectation of privacy in the property. Thus, the search of the bag did not violate his fourth amendment rights. See United States v. Collis, 766 F.2d 219 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851, 106 S.Ct. 150, 88 L.Ed.2d 124 (1985); United States v. Jones, 707 F.2d 1169 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 859, 104 S.Ct. 184, 78 L.Ed.2d 163 (1983); State v. Oliver, 368 So.2d 1331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. dismissed, 383 So.2d 1200 (Fla.1980). The state concedes, however, that the trial court erred in adjudicating appellant delinquent based on the separate findings that appellant possessed cocaine and possessed cocaine with the intent to sell. Under double jeopardy principles, both adjudications cannot stand; the adjudication of delinquency for the lesser offense of simple possession must be vacated. C.P. v. State, 505 So.2d 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

513 So. 2d 231, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2343, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ms-v-state-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack