NEFTALI DEJESUS v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 22, 2023
Docket22-1913
StatusPublished

This text of NEFTALI DEJESUS v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA (NEFTALI DEJESUS v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA) 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
NEFTALI DEJESUS v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, (Fla. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed March 22, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-1913 Lower Tribunal No. F10-23279 ________________

Neftali DeJesus, Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida, Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Mavel Ruiz, Judge.

Neftali DeJesus, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, HENDON and MILLER, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Petion v. State, 48 So. 3d 726, 730 (Fla. 2010)

(acknowledging that in a nonjury case there is a rebuttable presumption that

the trial court based its decision upon admissible evidence and disregarded

any inadmissible evidence; “if a trial judge receives evidence as the finder of

fact and hears inadmissible evidence, such as through a suppression

hearing, a proffer, a motion in limine, or prior to sustaining an objection to

the evidence, the judge is generally presumed to have disregarded the

improper evidence. Therefore, any error in the trial judge's exposure to this

improper evidence is deemed harmless”; further, where the trial court, sitting

as factfinder, makes an express statement on the record that erroneously

admitted evidence was not considered or did not contribute to the court’s

decision, any error in the admission of that evidence will ordinarily be

presumed harmless, in the absence of a showing that the trial court actually

relied upon the erroneous evidence in reaching its determination); King v.

State, 988 So. 2d 111, 113 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (noting that “in a bench trial,

there is a presumption that the trial court disregards any erroneously

admitted evidence” and further noting that the trial court “specifically stated

that it was not considering testimony other than that directly related to the

murder”).

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

Related

Petion v. State
48 So. 3d 726 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2010)
King v. State
988 So. 2d 111 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
NEFTALI DEJESUS v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neftali-dejesus-v-the-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2023.