Pavon v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pavon v. State

12 So. 3d 287, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 7261, 2009 WL 1606065

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 10, 2009

Docket3D07-2323

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 12 So. 3d 287 (Pavon 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

Pavon v. State, 12 So. 3d 287, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 7261, 2009 WL 1606065 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

SUAREZ, J.

Defendant appeals a final judgment of conviction and sentence after a jury trial. The defendant was charged by information with three counts of robbery using a deadly weapon or firearm and one count of false imprisonment, and he was convicted of robbery with a firearm. The defendant filed a motion to suppress his confession and evidence obtained from the search of his car and apartment, which, after an evidentiary hearing, was denied by the trial court. We affirm.

On a motion to suppress, the trial judge’s role is to weigh the credibility of the witnesses and resolve the evidentiary conflicts. See Parlee v. State, 899 So.2d 458 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). The record shows that the judge, with clarity, found the defendant’s confession and the consent to the inspection of his vehicle and apartment to be voluntary by a preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, the confession and evidence were rightfully admitted, and the denial of the motion to suppress was not error. See Dillow v. State, 884 So.2d 508 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

Affirmed.

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

SUAREZ, J.

Defendant appeals a final judgment of conviction and sentence after a jury trial. The defendant was charged by information with three counts of robbery using a deadly weapon or firearm and one count of false imprisonment, and he was convicted of robbery with a firearm. The defendant filed a motion to suppress his confession and evidence obtained from the search of his car and apartment, which, after an evidentiary hearing, was denied by the trial court. We affirm.

On a motion to suppress, the trial judge’s role is to weigh the credibility of the witnesses and resolve the evidentiary conflicts. See Parlee v. State, 899 So.2d 458 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). The record shows that the judge, with clarity, found the defendant’s confession and the consent to the inspection of his vehicle and apartment to be voluntary by a preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, the confession and evidence were rightfully admitted, and the denial of the motion to suppress was not error. See Dillow v. State, 884 So.2d 508 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 So. 3d 287, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 7261, 2009 WL 1606065, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pavon-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack